2007 merge

I think this should be merged with the Javascript article, if it makes sense to do so. Look at ECMAScript engine - it is a simple redirect to ECMAScript. I suspect probably this means the List of ECMAScript engines and List of JavaScript engines should also be merged. 125.62.64.155 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is awfully close to copyvio, too. See the Mozilla page.--Inonit 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

2009 restart

Restarted in Summer 2009 for new JS engines in browsers. Digita (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of information here that's redundant with JavaScript, and the info that's not redundant could be condensed and merged with the main article. --Maian (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

KDE's frostbyte came out before squirrelfish 198.144.209.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Google Chrome in introduction?

It doesn't appear obvious to me that Chrome deserves an entire paragraph in the introductory section, discussing how its V8 engine is or isn't the fastest of its kind. It seems to me like the paragraph would fit better under the "JavaScript engines" section. Thoughts?

Also, the sentence "Later, however, Google Chrome won in the races of better performance" seemed especially ambiguous to me. At first glance it seems like nothing but a value judgment, ostensibly by a Chrome fanboy, purporting to establish his favorite browser as "the best." I'd like to remove it entirely, but thought I should get some other opinions first. In the meantime, I added a "clarify" tag. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, this whole article is mostly redundant or should be merged with with JavaScript and ECMAScript#Dialects. The line between JavaScript and ECMAScript engines is very blurred, since most ECMAScript dialects claim conformance with JavaScript and have their unique engines. Opera, for example, emphasizes that it has a ECMAScript engine rather than a JavaScript engine. --Maian (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Opera new JS engine

Opera has a new Javascript engine in their latest beta. Should this new engine Carakan, be listed here? It is a native code generating JIT that currently can support generating code for x86 and x64. But plans are to support native arm code generation as well for their mobile platforms (meaning opera's javascript engine will blaze on any platform Opera is on). --198.108.192.50 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Microsoft?

Microsoft's JScript - used in Internet Explorer, Windows Scripting Host, IIS and probably elsewhere - deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.56.128 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and now again: is ms here really at the right place? I mean, they have Jscript and Chakra is a JScript engine, or am I wrong? OK, it should be explained and mentioned, but it doesn't belong here! mabdul 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

JScript is JavaScript. For example, the original implementation in IE was a 100% faithful (bugs and all) reverse engineered version of Netscape's JavaScript. JScript adds some global helper objects that aren't in the standard, but so do other JavaScript implementations. But the language itself is identical. So how doesn't it fit here? 86.178.56.247 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is the fastest .... this should not be the place to discuss...

Some parts of this almost reads like a commentry from a race track.... I think it should suffice to reduce the entire stamenet into a summary that there is ongoing developement on making the fastest JavaScript engine. The actual fastes engine changes between releases, and is monitored by the popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenriise (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Text in question:

be bold! ;) mabdul 11:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Faster than what?

From the introduction:

• Released June 30, 2009 Firefox 3.5 includes the optimization technique which offered "performance improvements ranging between 20 and 40 times faster in some cases"^[8]

This is confusing. Clearly FF3.5 is 20-40x faster than something, but what? The cited source isn't all that clear, and to add to the confusion it doesn't mention FF3.5, but FF3.1 ("new optimization technique to bring a big performance boost ... is planned for inclusion in Firefox 3.1"). My guess is that it's 20-40x faster than FF3.0, but unless we can state what is the reference the sentence is meaningless. Jakew (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

since there wasn't anyff3.1, it was the differences between the browserversions 3.0 and 3.5! mabdul 14:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the article needs to be clearer about which versions are being compared. If nothing else it would be less confusing for those of us who don't have the version history of Firefox memorised. Jakew (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"JavaScript engines" are "ECMAScript engines"?

I think it would be better to combine the list of JavaScript engines in this article with the list of ECMAScript engines in the article List of ECMAScript engines. They are actually the same thing, aren't they? Similarly, it's better to write that "JScript and JavaScript are implementations (or dialects, whatever you like) of ECMAScript", and that "Chakra" is an ECMAScript engine.

To my understanding after reading a lot of primary source material, there is a conflation or confusion between the terms JScript and JavaScript, and an avoidance of the term ECMAScript, from time to time, in the Wikipedia articles on the ECMAScript family of dialects and implementations, leading to some duplication of material and unnecessary articles and disambiguation.

There are lots of comments in this talk page and other talk pages around the same or similar point.

I'm not saying that the term "JavaScript engine" is nonsense, far from it. It's just that the only precise interpretation I can think of for "JavaScript engines" as distinct from "ECMAScript engines" would be to refer to that subset of engines produced by vendors who are calling their language "JavaScript", basically every vendor except Microsoft, I think. I would suggest that distinction is not particularly helpful for us. Also when I see the term "JavaScript engine" I keep thinking the writer "really means" ECMAScript engine, but wants to use a more friendly term. But I think it's better for us in the long run to be more precise in an encyclopedia.

I wanted to put this out for discussion first, given the large amount of work going into this part of the Computing Languages section of Wikipedia. DonToto (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

hardware acceleration

should we mention that ms and apple are bashing against each other with the "best hardware acceleration". like ms does in the video at http://www.favbrowser.com/internet-explorer-9-vs-safari-5-hardware-acceleration/ and http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/06/07/internet-explorer-9-and-safari-5.aspx as described there: opera performs much better than all other browsers WITHOUt hardware acceleration at the moment! mabdul 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).