I linked to the anchor where it says that, right to the bottom of the section 4.3. Will people just STOP saying JavaScript was ‘never intended’ to have ‘nothing to do with Java’? They clearly meant JavaScript to be to Java what AWK is to C, at least syntax-wise. I was born one year after JS was conceived (the standard says ‘invented’, invented my ass! Who ‘invents’ a language?) so I am too young to have been around in the early days of web. But it seems like people back then wanted Java to be lingua franca of web, a bit like PostScript in the thread I posted a few hours ago. They named it JavaScript to assure people that it’s the interpreted, scripting form of Java.
Now don’t say ‘JS and Java are like car and carpet’ you will look like an idiot.
Also if you are wondering why I am reading the standard, it serves two purposes. First is, I wanna implement it one day in the future. Second is, I know shit about web scripting and I wanted to make myself a blog and I miserably failed. So I am learning it.
I know nobody asked, but one person might be wondering why someone would do this to himself.
Java and JavaScript are like car and carpet because despite the beginning of the names matching they serve different purposes. In the early web days Java applets were a thing and it failed which is why a new language was needed. It’s not a secret that there was pressure to make Javascript look like Java, that’s just not the point of the figure of speech.