Throughout the website, there seems to be a general usage of the term “JavaScript” to signify Unity’s custom C+±like scripting language that I shall refer to as “UnityScript” henceforth. It is understandable to mistakenly use this terminology, seeing how JavaScript is the world’s most misunderstood programming language. It should be noted, however, that UnityScript fails to follow in the spirit of JavaScript, with a completely different method for object orientation and a new type system. Therefore, it is only logical that the website represent these significant differences by appropriately labeling it UnityScript, as opposed to the misleading and incorrect labeling it as “JavaScript.”
This terminology can be very misleading and almost acts as a false selling point. Many JavaScript users may come to this language thinking they’ll be using the same language they’re accustomed to, when in fact they are using a different language. As a responsible company, it is Unity’s duty to fix this misleading advertising that is consistent throughout the website. In addition, Unity should proceed to notify all of their customers of this mistake and the fixes that have been made. After all, misleading advertising is illegal, and it’s the right of the customers to know that this has been fixed.
I hope to see a response from Unity on this soon. Thanks,
Unityscript (As most people who post regularaly on the forum / and advanced users refer to it as) resembles to JScript.NET which is an implementation of Javascript. As “Javascript” is a word people use to cover all the different implementations of Javascript even though they all have differences between them. So I think it is ok for the Unity folk to refer to it as Javascript as Javascript is not implementation specific, So there is no illusion, sure if someone picks up a book on Javascript but it isint specific to JScript.NET and more to ECMAScript there might not learn specific things, but then they should have done research on the topic and what books to buy.
Then again it seems like your panties are in a twist, whats up with that?
it is kind of misleading (though not maliciously so)
it is the wrong name
But to go overboard like the op is a bit extreme since the issue is harmless and frankly, irrelevant since we can correct people. I use the term unity js or unityscript myself. Prefixing it with unity seems to work for me and stops me from curling into a foetal position and crying myself to sleep.
Read again, maybe you dont quite understand… No where did i quote any legal action , in fact , i even reposted laughing at it…IN FACT , i didnt quote anything until jsut now. hmm someone seems a little anal.
It’s cool, I saw your laughter a bit after I posted my post (was not t here when I started writing it and this forum does not refresh the entire page after posting.) But if you read MY post (the one I take it you replied to since you started with “actually I agree with him”) I was really just highlighting his threat and attitude.
Although I agree with Shallows. If there should be a rename it should be to JScript.NET, though, not UnityScript.
Since “JavaScript” isn’t a standard (ECMAScript is) I don’t think your legal argument holds water. JavaScript can be anything you want to call it. And since ECMAScript Harmony includes classes and static typing, I think it’s fair to consider UnityScript to be JavaScript with non-standard extensions… something you see in any pretty much any language developer by a company rather than a standards organization.
So… we call for the world to apologize for calling ECMAScript JavaScript, and get browser makers to apologize to the world for their error and rename all instances of the JavaScript usage to ECMAScript… and reminder of illegal marketing?
That would be misleading. (For one, JScript.NET has no generics.) If you’re going to rename, might as well make it an accurate rename. The only thing that’s accurate is UnityScript, or some other unique name.
More like go back in time and trottle the execs at Netscape who changed the name from LiveScript for marketing purposes (though I guess it worked, it’s pretty damned ubiquitous now.)
P.S. I agree with calling it UnityScript, and I do so myself. I just think the op’s arguments don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
I agree with Eric, if they are going to rename all of their documentation where they have put the word “Javascript” they should use “Unityscript”. As I said in my previous post Unityscript only resembles JScript.NET (It is similar but not exactly the same as JScript.NET), Unityscript is its own .NET implementation of Javascript.
Though I stand by what it said, the term Javascript stands for all of the implementations of Javascript as that is what everyone referes to all of the different implementations of Javascript so thus UnityScript being an implementation of Javascript it can be called Javascript.
I agree that it’s wrong to call it JavaScript as when people start out they may search for JavaScript tutorials and go in the completely wrong direction, I would have got stuck with this a few years ago but thankfully I searched “Unity tutorials” and came across the tornado twins.
It doesn’t really bother me but they should rename it something original
That’s because most programmers don’t learn JavaScript as a first language.
No, there’s no legal argument, you guys are right. I’m just pointing out that it’s frowned upon to mislead people that would buy a product based on something like this. (Think about a company using Unity saying they require “JavaScript” experience).
When most people refer to JavaScript, they refer to ECMAScript. This is important, because the reason Unity calls it JavaScript is that they want people to think that their prior experience will transfer over. However, very few people who would say they know JavaScript actually are familiar with JScript.NET.
