zlacker

The fact that you wrote it wrong is hilariously ironic.

JavaScript is simply the better term, and marketing is everything. Reminds me of Java's POJOs, which was a very simple pattern that no one used, until someone gave them a fancy name.

ECMAScript is a horrible technical name. Might as well call it ACMEScript considering how willie e. coyote it feels to develop with it...

>>dev0p+(OP)
> Might as well call it ACMEScript considering how willie e. coyote it feels to develop with it...

And it would feel just the same if it was named something else.

It's just a name, who gives a damn?

>>dev0p+(OP)
Call it "Jay Ess". Everyone does already.

>>pwdiss+K2
> It's just a name, who gives a damn?

This is extremely ironic given that JavaScript was so named because people do give a damn about names so Netscape/Sun leveraged the Java success to push JS, hence they named it JAVAscript despite it having nothing to do with Java.

>>dev0p+(OP)
it sounds like eczema - naming your programming language after a skin condition is not a great choice

nothing against people with eczema of course

>>dev0p+(OP)
POJO is one of my favorite acronyms. Along with POTS and COTS.

POTS = Plain Old Telephony System COTS = Commercial Off-The-Shelf

>>dev0p+(OP)
ACME is actually better, because you can say or read it in under 5 business days.

>>msgill+rb
> POTS = Plain Old Telephony System I worked for NY Telephone for years in the '80s, and it was referred to there as "Plain Old Telephone Service" not System. Not that it's a big deal at this point!

>>garyro+gh
I started my career as a telecom tech in the mid Atlantic (late 90's) and can confirm it was that for me too

>>garyro+gh
My understanding is that the Service was provided by the System.

>>DANmod+mf
I've heard people say "Eczema Script" in jest.

ECMAScript is a horrible name. It's worse than Google Bard.

>>garyro+gh
I was in the ballpark!