Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better Example than Animations[edit]

CSS3, SASS, SCSS, and LESS can all animate content without scripts. I think a better example should be provided so that people better understand what these languages can do. I.e "make a popup." DukeOfGrammar (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see this as a problem. Just because there's an alternate way to do page animations, doesn't invalidate the example of JS doing it. But good suggestion about pop-ups. I added that to the list. -Pmffl (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntax - variadic function demonstration[edit] says "If you're writing ES6 compatible code, then rest parameters should be preferred." So maybe replace or add a rest param example.  AltoStev Talk 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oppose - @AltoStev: These tips aren't mandatory. It just makes easier to access a fraction of elements inside arguments. --AXONOV (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JAVA elimination[edit]

I suggest to revert the following edits mentioning JAVA. These were illegally removed by Pmffl. It should be mentioned per WP:LEAD.

  • 17:04, May 12, 2021 - «‎Creation at Netscape: wording»
  • 16:42, May 12, 2021 - «Restored revision 1022595329 by ClueBot NG talk): Full vandal revert»
  • 22:49, April 12, 2021 - «remove Java comparison from lede - covered in the hat, the history, and a dedicated section»
  • 07:26, April 12, 2021 - «Undid revision 1017339785 by talk) junk edit - wrong section and Node already covered»

--AXONOV (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean by 'illegally removed'? Those are totally normal edits. One of them is restoring half a sentence that was deleted by an IP vandal. - MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrOllie: See MOS:INTRO#summarize. The JAVA is discussed in the body. No reason to remove it from lead. AXONOV (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are valid reasons to remove it, as I stated in my edit comment. Two more: the body of the Java article doesn't even mention JS at all, and it's best to not bloat the lede of this article. -Pmffl (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd strongly argue that it belongs in the lede. It's a frequent source of confusion to people unfamiliar with the languages, and its prominently mentioned in the Mozilla Developer Network page on Javascript here. One of the most popular Javascript books "Eloquent Javascript," also mentions it in the second paragraph of the into here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the hatnote alone is probably good enough, as it is now it seems a bit redundant. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: It's fair point to mention Java. We have to follow WP:INTRO anyway. And moreover, there is a whole website devoted to JAVASCRIPT IS NOT A JAVA[1]. To say nothing of the books: [2][3] AXONOV (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use semi-official logo as infobox icon[edit]

The infobox currently shows pure javascript code. I feel this is confusing to users who don't understand JavaScript or programming in general. Currently, the infobox also links as comment back to a 2013 talk thread with 2 people agreeing to remove the icon. I feel that now, this logo is way more standard and universal than ever.

Semi-official logo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo12101 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the incredibly late reply, but I 100% agree with you, it is almost universally accepted and recognized. If there aren't any objections I'll go ahead and switch it. ~ Buffalo Nickel 1913 Type 1 Obverse.png Eejit43 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind, seems like a consensus was made in 2015 regarding this: Talk:JavaScript/Archive 5#Why is the unofficial logo present?
Might not be a bad idea to discuss this further, however, as the acceptance of the logo has changed since then.
If not, the icon should definitely be improved, the example code is quite unhelpful, and the usage of HTML just serves to be confusing. ~ Buffalo Nickel 1913 Type 1 Obverse.png Eejit43 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For post related to Javascript JSON array refer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utka05 (talkcontribs) 09:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading infobox caption[edit]

Current revision as of writing [4]

The caption of the infobox image currently states "Screenshot of JavaScript source code" while the image definitely shows "JavaScript source code embedded in HTML". (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntax - "In HTML documents..." example[edit]

The example given for output in HTML documents previously said "In HTML documents, this program is required for an output", I changed this to (the awkwardly worded) "In HTML documents, a program like this is required for an output" so it no longer sounds like it would require this exact code, but the example still seems unclear and not well explained. In particular, the document.querySelector() examples at the end are presented as though they're part of the "Hello, World!" equivalent, but as far as I can tell they're not? AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is this[edit]

??? (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a specific question regarding this talk page or JavaScript itself? If the latter I'd suggest reading the article... ~ Buffalo Nickel 1913 Type 1 Obverse.png Eejit43 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I want to see video in iPlayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft did not reverse-engineer javascript[edit]

In History/Adoption by Microsoft, we can read that "Microsoft did reverse-engineer javascript". As netscape source code was available, it cannot be true, as per the definition of "reverse engineering" of wikipedia. Having the source code of a language is not at all doing so "with very little (if any) insight into exactly how it does so". 2A01:CB14:601:A00:5B8F:DF2:C3E0:199E (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]