cal85

How do you know this? Not disagreeing, just curious.

The problem is FUD. Some guy at a company gets told he has to wait for legal to approve some open source project or initiative that happens to use JS in the name, because his boss heard there’s a trademark issue, and the enthusiasm fades and the idea gets sidelined. There’s probably been thousands of tiny little instances of FUD like that, which we’d never hear about, and which have led to good things not happening.

One clear instance of FUD we do know about is the spec itself is not titled with the name of the language it specifies, which is then its own source of confusion for newcomers trying to learn the web platform, and makes it harder for old timers to explain things, and is generally annoying. Complexity. Confusion. Doubt. Inaction.

Removing legal FUD from the world is a good cause. I don’t mind if it also works as a good marketing play for Deno.

They thought of that and called the spec ECMAScript instead.

Because it’s written in vanilla JS.

Camouflage in what sense?

Had same issue until I disconnected from Tailscale, in case that helps anyone.

> I think there really are people who can visualize that apple.

Based on what evidence?

True. But it feels like a fairer comparison would be with a huge healthcare company that failed to vet one of its therapists properly, so a crazy pro-suicide therapist slipped through the net. Would we petition to shut down the whole company for this rare event? I suppose it would depend on whether the company could demonstrate what it is doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

It's not an em-dash, it's an en-dash, which is rare in LLM output. Also just stop being insufferable.

Or, when you do go looking, it doesn’t feel the same. Why?

The last sentence can’t be true. If you go looking for them, they’re easy to find. The problem is you don’t.

> That needs to be solved. Seems like an easy solve. Just don't do it.

I don’t do it, but I’m not sure how that solves the problem of other people doing it.