Reply to post:

Croquet for Unity: Live, network-transparent 3D gaming... but it's so much more

Liam Proven (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

[Author here]

There are a number of misconceptions and misunderstandings in this comment. I doubt I can persuade you, but for anyone else who reads it, I will try to correct them.

> Despite what the article says

You seem to misunderstand the article and it does not say what you claim.

> JavaScript was in no way derived from Smalltalk

I did not say it did.

JavaScript is *not* derived from Smalltalk. JavaScript is derived from Self. It is Self that was derived from Smalltalk. This is a matter of historical record, and there are plenty of links to back it up.

Javascript:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript

Quote:

«

Influenced by:

Java,[5][6] Scheme,[6] Self,[7] AWK,[8] HyperTalk[9]

»

> Just ask Brendan Eich.

Two things here.

[1] It may interest you to know that Mr Eich himself tweeted this story about Croquet.

[2] I quoted Mr Eich in the article. I linked to Eich's own history of the development of JavaScript. You appear not to have noticed or read that. I specifically said:

«

whose creator described it as "a quickie love-child of C and Self."

»

That is how Brandon Eich *himself* described Javascript.

I make no claims about Javascript's simplicity or anything to do with that.

Smalltalk, for all its power, remains a relatively niche language and not widely used in industry.

Javascript, on the other hand, is _vastly_ widely used and is part of almost every website in the world. It's been implemented and re-implemented, by Mozilla, Microsoft, the KDE project for KHTML which became Webkit and Blink, and standardised by ECMA.

It's the fate of widely-used languages to accumulate features, like any other widely-used software.

> He'll tell you his inspiration came exclusively from Scheme

This is a misremembering of history.

The original plan was to use Scheme, but in fact, due largely to time pressures, that was abandoned and instead Eich used Self with a bolted-on C-like syntax.

This is widely recorded. The link I used in the article itself:

«

As I’ve often said, and as others at Netscape can confirm, I was recruited to Netscape with the promise of “doing Scheme” in the browser.

»

https://web.archive.org/web/20200204010840/https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/

It certainly seems clear to me that you didn't follow that link and read Eich's *own history of the development*.

Other sources:

«

What was meant to be a Scheme for the browser turned into something very different.

»

https://auth0.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-javascript/

You continue to misinterpret what I wrote:

> JavaScript also differs in not being object-oriented, at least, not in the traditional or Smalltalk sense.

No, because *it's not based on Smalltalk*. It's based on Self. Self is a classless language, using prototypes instead.

«

In Self, and other prototype-based languages, the duality between classes and object instances is eliminated.

»

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(programming_language)

> For the article to state that JavaScript is "an extraordinarily good language" and "probably one of the best languages out there" is absurd.

The article does not state that. I did not write those lines. They are _quotes_. I interviewed David A Smith for the story; those are quotations from him, not from me.

What *I* said was:

> We were surprised by the glowing terms in which Smith described it to The Reg:

I was surprised because I am not a fan of JavaScript myself. I quoted Smith, and then I resumed by saying that the explanation made sense.

That does not mean I agree. It means that I thought his explanation added up.

> How does the author define "good" and "best"???

How *I* define them does not matter because I was not using those words; you seem not to notice that they are from the founder and CTO of Croquet Inc. not from me.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon