[cxr]

This is a stupid non-issue. You can go ahead and call it JavaScript despite what Oracle does or doesn't say.

Better yet, though: don't call it JavaScript—call it JS. "JavaScript" is and always was a dumb name. "JS" is not only fine, but better—and not because "JS" is particularly good, but because "JavaScript" itself isn't exactly hard to beat.

The only thing left to do is for the spec authors (which includes signatories to this petition) and the rest of TC-39 to say so; the next edition of ECMA-262 should modify the existing disclaimer in the preface about "JavaScript" being an Oracle trademark to state unequivocally that "JavaScript"—an unfortunate vestige of an ill-considered marketing decision in the 1900s—is a deprecated way to refer to the language not otherwise terribly well-known as ECMAScript and that the recommended way to refer to it is simply as "JS".

[sigzero]

There is nothing better about "JS" over "JavaScript".

[johannes1234321]

"JavaSciript" implies it's some scripting language related to Java, which was originally an idea, where it was meant to control Java Applets. But that is not a thing anymore. Thus the name makes no sense. "JS" is just a name only conflicting with my initials.

[layer8]

The name was exclusively chosen based on marketing considerations, to have it benefit from the Java hype of the time. It was actually called LiveScript before.

[jbverschoor]

They succeeded though

[bryanrasmussen]

but "JS" implies it is some sort of amalgam of the J and S programming languages - or it doesn't and probably the Java implication doesn't exist anymore either - who really, on hearing the name in a modern context is going to think "hey, it must be a scripting version of that one really old programming language granddad in the office is always reminiscing about"?

[lkirkwood]

... do you think people don't use Java anymore?

[bryanrasmussen]

sure they use it, but I sort of feel the groups that use it and JavaScript are no longer likely to cross over each other, and thus new devs will not be making the historical mistake of rhetorical misunderstanding that was made in the old days.

[daymanstep]

Full stack developers often use both Java and JavaScript.

[nailer]

We can avoid your initials conflicting with anything by abbreviating your name to “JavaScript” now that is available.

[cxr]

Wrong, and that's not the question, anyway.

There is nothing worse about "JS" over "JavaScript".

(Whereas the reverse is not true—there is something worse about "JavaScript" over "JS". Several somethings.)

[rz2k]

It works well as a modifier, and makes it easy to search for projects that are named after other common concepts or objects. It's also easy and natural- sounding to say for English speakers. Compared to other modifiers, it's more like "-dot-com" than "-lang", or even worse "libre-".

[nailer]

It’s smaller. The logo already just says JS. It doesn’t boost Java’s reputation. And people in the ecosystem don’t have to worry about oracle threatening them.

[kragen]

javascript is an oracle registered trademark, js isn't

[Brian_K_White]

There are at least 3 things better about JS over JavaScript.

[Eric_WVGG]

Isn't the technical name ECMAScript?

What would be really cool is if the community could just rally around the original name, LiveScript… it never had anything to do with Java, let that go…

[agumonkey]

Makes me wonder if there are rules to use area names for your brands. Can I start Tennesseescript ?

[kragen]

this is an interesting angle. maybe the js luminaries signing this open letter can get support from the government in jakarta. i didn't realize this, but a hundred and fifty-six million people live in literal java

[agumonkey]

early adopters of java-RT