Talk:JavaScript is not Java

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Merge with JavaScript

I think this should be best included in the main article. — Fatalis 13:33, 25 Mar 2005 (PST)

This article should *not* be merged with JavaScript.
  • It would have to be merged with Java too, resulting in two copies of the same info on two different pages, which is *bad*.
  • Having this info as a separate page is extremely useful. I have lost count of the number of times I've had to tell newbies (here, on the Moz Forums, and in many other places) that Java != JavaScript. Having a separate page allows me to link to it from whatever forum/bb/newsgroup I'm working in. --Mozcerize 04:06, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)
I'm not sure that the connection between Java and JavaScript is so mutual. A simple sentence noting about this in Java and linking to the corresponding JavaScript article section (MediaWiki allows you to link to every individual heading) should resolve the ambiguity. Besides, it's only one of the great many common misconceptions about JavaScript. The most consistent approach would be to group them, say, in a separate article or, more preferably, include in the main one. —Fatalis
I agree that a page on misconceptions would be nice. But I don't think we should add all the detail that's currently in "JavaScript is not Java" to the "JavaScript" article. Firstly, because it's too long. (Anyone reading the JavaScript page who actually knows that JavaScript is not Java won't want to wade through a three-paragraph explanation of the difference.) My second point above remains the real raison d'etre for this article. Take a look at the Discussion (Talk) areas for both the JavaScript and Java articles; they are consistently posted to by people who have confused the two technologies. So although the connection is probably not fully mutual, there is a real need for the information in this article to be simple, forceful and easily linked to. --Mozcerize
The length of an article doesn't impair its readability or the simplicity of its elements, provided it's organized into sections and well written. Nobody is forced to "wade" through the text; it's called scanning, and it's fast. Instead what makes articles slower to read is breaking them into separate short pages. My opinion is that JavaScript is not Java doesn't qualify to be an individual entry because of the brevity of its contents and because it'll become completely redundand once the JavaScript misconceptions section is added. —Fatalis
Fatalis, I don't know whether you're involved in user support or not but it's really convenient to have a few links that you can post in answer to a common question or when people are confused about a concept. This is one of main reasons for creating new pages in the kb. (Disclaimer: although I currently don't post in user support forums, I have been involved with it before and I do post links to kb articles often in response to questions in dev forums.) --asqueella
Linking to a section is hardly less convenient than linking to an article, because MediaWiki provides a unique name for all headlines. However, fragmentating the content too much has a cost of higher redundancy and more cumbersome navigation. I don't think that's acceptable. —Fatalis
From my experience in user support (and I think others agree with me here), having a short, well-written article that answers one specific question is better. For example, having a separate article on profile manager and managing profiles is better than having all information related to profiles in one article (namely profile folder). In many cases, user doesn't suffer from "cumbersome navigation", because he only needs to know an answer to a particular question. Quite the contrary, it is harder for him to find the info he needs on a long, overburdened article -- scanning is fast, but it still takes time. Also remember that sometimes user comes from Google, which does not link to a section. btw, I think that the "higher redundancy" you talk about is in fact good.
We're not like Wikipedia. We're different, you have to accept that. The move to long articles has already turned off a few contributors, like Dunderklumpen. I would not like to make this happen again. --asqueella
Indeed. Personally I'm not a fan of redundancy—but fragmenting articles decreases redundancy because you can then link to that article from more than one place rather than hard-code the information into both places. The fact that "Java" and "JavaScript" both link here is a perfect example of this. Of course there's a balance to be achieved between fragmentation and readability; I too prefer articles which are all on one page and not split up. But this is a support article not a technical article and so what I (and others like me) prefer doesn't matter a damn; the article has been fragmented according to the needs of the user base (non-technical users). --Mozcerize 14:44, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)