Community Guidelines — EcmaScript

Community Guidelines — EcmaScript

After submitting edifying comments on LinkedIn's JavaScript Developer Group and comments on StackOverflow,

1) https://www.linkedin.com/posts/garrett-smith-8522571_ecmascript-strict-mode-assignment-writable-activity-7011757011080019969-z6tI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
2) https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71849173/what-part-of-ecmascript-spec-mandates-that-string-type-is-immutable/7489248 #74892480

— I submitted my feedback for the pertinent spec, EcmaScript, on the Ecma-262 project's GitHub, linked below.

After submitting my comments regarding the vague and poorly edited ECMA 262 Appendix "C Strict Mode", I was admonished (threatened), in typical net nanny fashion, with "Community Guidelines".

That was done as an attempt to establish, first and foremost, the dynamic that he, the sponsored representative, was in charge. Any criticism I might have for the specification wasn't worthy of acknowledgment or consideration by the specification maintainers who assume a position of authority with the ability to block/WONTFIX, etc, both as moral authorities and enforcers of "community guidelines", and maintainers of the specification sponsored and financed by powerful corporations. (See: https://github.com/tc39/how-we-work/blob/main/join-tc39.md)

The censorship threat of "community guidelines" falls under the thin veil of being kind and nice. I quickly exposed the would-be kindness benefactor who was ostensibly trying to make everything "nice".

Note, that in my feedback, linked below, there are no insults; no disparaging comments directed at anyone. My criticism is about the specification.

Yet despite my work, with clear feedback and explanation (see GitHub link below), those specification authors only complained and threatened me with "community guidelines" for my criticism of the badly-worded specification.

I then uploaded this video to YouTube, which, being on YouTube, they cannot remove from their bug tracker. They cannot memory-hole this discussion to discount me with their lies.

The offended specification contributor then apparently watched this video, despite the trigger warning I gave him, and, being offended, locked the GitHub issue.

Imagine my surprise. They refused to take my positive contribution and instead censored me for my effort.
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/2986#issuecomment-1364173133

My contributions to the evolution of the EcmaScript Specification have spanned over 20 years. The specification had always been published only in PDF format and, if it weren't for me, it probably still would be published in only PDF.

In 2015, the TC39 committee member Lars Hansen chose to publish that specification in HTML at my request. The reason the specification is now published in HTML can be traced back to my request for those TC39-sponsored members to do so. And, knowing that I was clearly and publicly right, they heeded my request.

This was published on the ES4 Discuss list, a mailing list for the abandoned EcmaScript version 4.
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/proposed-es4-draft-1

I'm fighting for developers and for the free and open internet. The TC39 committee is fighting back against that, keeping the specification as a document by and for the big corporate interests, not developers working in the trenches.

The specification is still hard to read. Brendan explained that the misunderstanding of JavaScript were due assumptions that JavaScript is some lesser form of Java.

That explanation may have held some validity in the past, but not any more. JavaScript has grown in complexity and adoption. Yet despite the massive growth and adoption, the intricacies of the language remain an elusive mystery to developers at large.

The reason most JavaScript developers don't deeply understand JavaScript is the language specification is *still* needlessly hard for developers to understand.