✨ ECMAScript / JavaScript

[ctcpip]

No description provided.

[ljharb]

it's erroring when i try to add this suggestion:

Historically, the first implementation of what became JavaScript was called "Mocha", and then "LiveScript", which was later rewritten and became SpiderMonkey.

[ctcpip]

@ljharb Thanks for the suggestion, but I think it is slightly inaccurate as you are conflating the impl/engine with the language name. Mocha was the original impl (aka engine) name. The language shipped in a beta as LiveScript and was later changed to JavaScript. The implementation itself was not called LiveScript.

[ljharb]

Mocha was the original language codename as well.

[ctcpip]

True, it was the working name for the project. This is a little sticky because we want the FAQ answer to be clear and accurate but without being too wordy.

[ctcpip]

indeed from AWB's book glossary:

Mocha n. the code name of the language that became JavaScript; also, the name of Netscape’s original JavaScript engine.

[jridgewell]

I've also commonly used JavaScript to refer to core ECMAScript + Web APIs.

[ctcpip]

@ljharb I updated the last paragraph to something I think strikes a good balance. What do you think?

[ctcpip]

I've also commonly used JavaScript to refer to core ECMAScript + Web APIs.

@jridgewell Yeah, I thought about perhaps mentioning this.

from the conversation that inspired this PR:

the root of that is that in many (most?) environments that run JavaScript, you can do many things that are outside the scope of the actual JavaScript language itself.  so people say "do x in JavaScript" where x is not actually available in ECMAScript, but is provided by the environment, e.g. web browser

maybe good for a follow up, perhaps maybe its own question

[ctcpip]

the trouble is I don't think it's helpful to encourage that generalization, e.g. that JavaScript necessarily includes web platform APIs

[ljharb]

I agree; web APIs are definitely not an inherent part of JavaScript.

[michaelficarra]

Tried leaving this feedback yesterday, but GitHub was broken (again):

This isn't related enough to the question. I'd remove it.

[ctcpip]

it's very deliberately there because the idea that "ES is the spec and JS is the impl" is an often-repeated idea that is mostly inaccurate. (it is actually the main reason I added this question to the FAQ.) the historical context sheds light on the root of how/why that started