ECMAScript版本4 [英] ECMAScript Version 4

问题描述

Hello All，


有没有人知道版本4何时发布？我认为
认为版本3是在1999年完成的，如果有类关键字和静态类型的变量，那将是非常好的

。


谢谢，

马克

解决方案

Simula写道：

有没有人知道什么时候发布版本4？我认为版本3在1999年完成了


版本4现在已经过期了，从某种意义上讲它应该是前一段时间发布的b $ b。它现在似乎不太可能最终确定，因为微软已经发布了他们的版本作为
JScript.net并且现在没有动机同意一个已移动的标准

on，而其他人似乎都不想回滚到微软实施的版本

（而且这是100％的推测）。


并不是说第4版的发布会改变任何东西多年来

因为我们仍然处于使用某种语言的智慧的地步

第3版中介绍的功能值得商榷。


从未有过另一个版本

的ECMAScript也有很多话要说。因为它是每个人都能够朝着一个标准的一个标准，并且由于当前实施中的少数错误得到了固定，我们非常接近真正可靠的使用基础

的语言。一个新的语言版本将需要六个新的实现和一组全新的错误，在

实现之间有所不同。

和拥有类关键字


我真的很高兴我认为没有优势。每个有用的概念形式基于类的

语言都可以在ECMAScript中实现。

和静态类型变量。

ECMAScript的松散输入有助于实现许多最有用的技术，以适应

浏览器对象模型之间的差异。并且

松散的打字迫使程序员采用更加自律的方法来感知他们正在使用的类型，因为语言没有使用他们的b $ b很明显。


如果你想编写Java或C ++，你为什么不这样做？因为它是

ECMAScript是用于编写Web浏览器脚本的理想语言，因为它b / b
是动态且灵活的，足以有效地适应各种范围

of执行环境。让它更像Java并不会对

有所帮助，因为Java是专门设计的，并且将一个单一且精确定义的执行环境借给它。


Richard。

Simula< pe ********* @ gmail.com>在消息新闻中写道：11 ********************** @ g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com ...

Hello All，<拥有类关键字和静态类型变量真是太好了。

在编译语言中毫无疑问，但是引入了一个标准不会神奇地更新口译员的范围

目前正在使用;在公共消费代码中利用这些功能是不切实际的。

-

Stephen Chalmers

Richard ，


正如您所指出的，Javascript非常接近Java或C ++，因为它是
。 Javascript已经有了类，只是所有变量都是公共的，并且函数关键字用于定义它们。类是

，用于将变量和函数分组为明确的类别，我认为
认为class关键字有助于澄清努力。


我不是说我希望当前用于定义

类的方法被废除，只是更清晰，更广为人知的

技术被添加。

我对静态类型断言同样的事情。我不希望删除

动态类型，但静态类型会帮助开发人员减少逻辑错误并可能导致速度

增加（如果实现的话）。


我同意在浏览器中实现版本4需要相当长的时间才能实现
，但我认为增加是值得的。

我的想法是，标准越早出现，越早实施（即使我们说的是另外5年以上）。


感谢理查德的推测，它帮助我理解了

景观。

Mark

Hello All,

Does anyone have any knowledge of when version 4 will be released? I
think that version 3 was finalized in 1999 and it would be really nice
to have the class keyword and statically typed variables.

Thanks,
Mark

解决方案

Simula wrote:

Does anyone have any knowledge of when version 4 will be
released? I think that version 3 was finalized in 1999
Edition 4 is now every overdue, in the sense that it was supposed to be
released some time ago. It now seems unlikely that it will ever be
finalised, because Microsoft have already released their version as
JScript.net and are now not motivated to agree a standard that has moved
on, while everyone else don''t seem keen to roll back to the version
Microsoft implements (and yes that is 100% speculation).

Not that the release of edition 4 would change anything for many years
as we are still at a point where the wisdom of using some language
features introduced in edition 3 is debatable.

There is also a great deal to be said for never having another version
of ECMAScript. As it is everyone is in a position to move towards one
consistent standard, and as the few bugs in current implementations get
fixed we are very close to having a genuinely reliable bases for the use
of the language. A new language version would call for in half a dozen
new implementations and a whole new set of bugs, differing between
implementations.
and it would be really nice to have the class keyword
I see no advantage in that. Every useful concept form class-based
languages are demonstrably implementable in ECMAScript.
and statically typed variables.

Many of the most useful techniques for accommodating differences between
browser object models are facilitated by ECMAScript''s loose typing. And
loose typing forces programmers to adopt a more disciplined approach to
perceiving the types they are using, because the language does not make
them obvious.

If you want to program Java or C++ why don''t you do that? As it is
ECMAScript is the ideal language for scripting web browsers because it
is dynamic and flexible enough to efficiently accommodate a wide range
of execution environments. Making it more like Java would not help in
that respect at all, as Java is specifically designed for, and lends
itself to, one single and precisely defined execution environment.

Richard.

Simula <pe*********@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11**********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Hello All,

it would be really nice to have the class keyword and statically typed variables.

In a compiled language no doubt, but the introduction of a standard will not magically update the range of interpreters
currently in use; making it impractical to exploit such features in code intended for public consumption.
--
Stephen Chalmers

Richard,

As you have pointed out, Javascript is very close to Java or C++ as it
is. Javascript already has classes, it is just that all variables are
public and the function keyword is used to define them. Classes are
for grouping your variables and functions into clear categories and I
think that the class keyword would help clarify the endeavor.

I''m not saying that I wish that the current methods for defining
classes are done away with, just that clearer and more widely known
techniques are added.
I assert the same thing for static typing. I would not wish that
dynamic typing be removed, but static typing would help developers
stamp out logical errors and would potentially result in a speed
increase (if implemented).

I do agree that it would take quite a long time for version 4 to be
implemented within browsers, but I think the additions are worthwhile.
My thought is that the sooner the standard comes out, the sooner it can
be implemented (even if we are talking another 5+ years).

Thanks for the speculation Richard, it helps me understand the
landscape.
Mark

这篇关于ECMAScript版本4的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！