Talk:Java

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RFV 1[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


Java

IRC use? Not that I've heard. --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

rfvfailed sense deleted Cynewulf 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Derivation of JavaScript?[edit]

If I'm correct, the name JavaScript is derived from the programming language Java, which, in turn, was derived from the alternate word for coffee (term frequently used in the US). It doesn't really have any traceable direct connection in etymology to the actual island or country of Java --KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding, too. But it doesn't do much for a user to be precise. We should show separate etymologies, and also allow for the plural use of Java, as in the Javas, an older name for a group of the islands of Indonesia. We also need the sense for Java is a name for various types of birds. There's plenty of work to do. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

C++ Like?![edit]

I wouldn't say Java is "C++ - like". Lots of things are different, too. I guess it's more like C#, for this sake.

--HTMLCODER.exe 07:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say C# is Java-like as it was based on Java. —CodeCat 03:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Java was based more closely on C++ than on anything else. Syntactically at least, it's very similar. Equinox 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Java was most definitely based on C++, but is it worth including in the definition? Cars were based on horse-drawn carriages, should we include that in the definition of car? --WikiTiki89 15:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
To go off on a tangent: the relationship between cars and carriages definitely belongs in the etymology section, since the word car predates the internal combustion engine. I agree on the main point, though. The resemblance to C++ doesn't help understand what Java is in the same way as the part about object-oriented language does. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, IMO it is worth including, because cars are far different from horse-drawn carriages, but Java is similar to C++, with only 10-20 years between them. Would you object to a definition of saucepan as sth similar to a pot, but with a handle? In the programming domain, it is meaningful and important to say that Java is based on C++. Equinox 20:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
But the thing is, Java isn't that similar. Syntactically they are very close, but semantically they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. It's more like the difference between a microwave and a toaster oven. --WikiTiki89 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, so we state that. It's still a useful descriptor. Compare anklet, "...resembling a bracelet but worn around the ankle". Paraphrasing Wikitiki, "in shape they are very close, but in terms of body position they are on opposite ends of body". Equinox 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, being in different places is an entirely different kind of difference. If you put an anklet on your wrist, it becomes a bracelet, and vice versa. I actually think the microwave/toaster oven distinction is a very good analogy. --WikiTiki89 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

RFV 2[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


"(computing, proscribed) JavaScript". Not just an occasional mistake by newbies? Cites please. Equinox 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've met so many people who thought they were the same thing, it's not even funny. So if it is occasional, it certainly happens in plenty of occasions! —CodeCat 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to 'cite' this exactly, but this is clearly a case of someone calling JavaScript Java: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20alert/comp.lang.javascript/gty7RHUi86o/bpsfTy4YiNQJ Note that it is actually posted in comp.lang.javascript, so whoever posted it was likely aware of the proper name. —CodeCat 23:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is number two: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20alert/comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows/QsUSJr9p4rQ/PbO8CMV8q-IJCodeCat 23:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
But if I find 3 cites of somebody erroneously calling a dog a cat, is that a new dictionary sense? I think not. See User:Dick Laurent/your shipment of win is in, sir. Equinox 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not? The word nice originally meant something else. If we had been there to document that change, you could have similarly argued that it isn't a new dictionary sense, despite usage examples to demonstrate the contrary. Wiktionary is neutral so it cannot judge what is correct and what is erroneous; see WT:WWIN. Of course we can document that the consensus among today's English speakers is that it is not correct (so we label it "proscribed") but to delete citable uses entirely would go against Wiktionary's principles. (So yes, if we can find 3 cites of someone using cat to mean what is commonly known as a dog, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be added.) —CodeCat 23:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is number 3: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20popup/macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion/43uMMm6WO3I/hvVz3n-fFWoJ . Note that in this last case, the user uses the two terms interchangeably; Java in the message subject but Java Script in the text itself. —CodeCat 23:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Even if we deem a sense-line at [[Java]] to be the appropriate way to note confusion between Java and JavaScript, it might be more descriptivist to define that sense as something like “(computing, proscribed) Java, JavaScript, wev, I don't know the difference, who cares” (suitably reworded) rather than as simply “(computing, proscribed) JavaScript”. (Granted, we frequently — or usually — separate senses on the basis of grammatical or semantic differences that lexicographers perceive, without regard for whether speakers perceive them; but in a case like this, where the entire existence of the sense is due to speakers' lack of perception of a distinction, I think it might be better to respect that and leave it be.) —RuakhTALK 03:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, this should be a usage note explaining that the two are often confused. It doesn't look to me like anything of lexical significance, just the misapplication of existing senses. I think this is a lot like typos and mispronunciations ( when I was a kid, I thought infrared rhymed with prepared). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV Closed per Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed.

Let me just add that I find the (above) defense of defining "JavaScript" as one of the meanings of "Java", albeit marked as proscribed, to be absolutely disgraceful. The cited examples are of extremely low quality, both lexicographically and on the merits of illustrating usage in any reliable way: The first one is posted by a Korean user with obvious difficulties in conveying accurate sense in idiomatic English. The remaining two feature consistent use by the quoted subject of the term "java script" with a space embedded. The only place where "Java" appears is in the thread title. Are we going to, on the strength of this evidence, define "Java script" and/or "Java Script" as alternatives to "JavaScript"/"Javascript"? I hope not. Finally, the only contributor arguing for the retention of this harmful and confusing definition is quoting scant Google Groups traffic, and no source of substance, such as, for example, a magazine article citing widespread usage, or, heaven forbid, a dictionary or a lexicographer. I am about to delete this definition from the article. I would also like to add that everyone present who commented on this issue when I raised it on #wikipedia-en was unanimously disparaging of the Wiktionary as a project and/or this particular inclusion, some 15 knowledgable people altogether. --Mareklug (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think just anyone can close nominations like that. It is clear that you're not familiar with how Wiktionary works, as Usenet is considered a durably archived source. See also WT:WFW which explains that Wiktionary does not exclude senses based on the quality of sources. More specifically, any citation is as valid as any other provided that it shows the term in use; something like a "low quality" source has no meaning on Wiktionary. I am therefore considering this re-opened until a more definite and appropriate conclusion is made. —CodeCat 04:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"Sorry, I don't think just anyone can close nominations like that" LOL. Obviously, only COI administrators such as yourself may do so. On the merit of Usenet, you are twisting the policy and the facts of the rfv to your advantage, and out of shape: It is not the issue that Usenet as such is a bad source. It is your particular selection of these 3 items as definitive sources that is suspect. Like I already said, the first one is a posting by a person who has a hard time with English, let alone the fine issue of resolving Java from JavaScript. If you fail to see that, it is difficult to afford you the assumption of good faith. Also, you failed to react to the fact that the remaining two items sport "java script" as a phrase, not as a single word. Again, this strongly implies confusion on the part of the speakers. You have yet to produce a lucid example by an obviously not confused speaker, or as I asked for, a third source, such as a magazine article or technical dictionary, or a work of social science that demonstrates that Java is used for JavaScript. On top of it all, you are the one who introduced this meaning on hearsay (as you admitted in the edit summary), and you are the person who consistently reverted removals of it and now protected the article. In all, to use an idiom, bad cop, no donut. :) --Mareklug (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that if someone uses "java script" then that actually lends more credibility to the definition, because it appears that they are treating "Java" as a kind of script similar to how one might say "Lua script" or "HTML markup". Confusion isn't the issue either, it's clear to anyone who knows better that these are two different things and should be kept apart. But as I said on my talk page, we don't distinguish or advocate proper English on Wiktionary. We document usage. See also WT:WWIN which explicitly mentions this. This means that Wiktionary also documents usage that is generally not considered correct by most people. What we document is that a significant minority of people are not aware of a distinction, and thus may use "Java" when most people would use "JavaScript". The purpose of a dictionary is to understand words and their meanings. So if someone tells me "I got a Java error in my browser" and they really meant JavaScript, I'd be very confused unless I was aware that some people use Java with that meaning. —CodeCat 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if I give you all your arguments, the fact remains, that you have yet to demonstrate that, in your own words, a significant minority of people does this, as opposed to google-search nit-picked precious isolated few. Go ahead, demonstrate this significant minority! You have been unable to do this for months now. --Mareklug (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as Wiktionary policy is concerned, 3 cites of usage is enough to demonstrate significant usage to warrant a definition. Please read WT:CFI, which explains this in more detail. —CodeCat 02:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
“only COI administrators such as yourself may do so” — anyone familiar with the RFV process can close them;
“selection of these 3 items as definitive sources” — they are definitive sources of word usage. They don’t need to be semantically correct; for example, something like “therefore we conclude that the Earth is indeed flat” is a perfectly valid citation for the word flat;
“You have yet to produce a lucid example by an obviously not confused speaker” — the community rejected, in a recent vote (here), the idea of considering published sources superior to Usenet sources.
The definition being RFVed has 3 CFI-valid cites, so it passes. If you think the definition should be removed for a reason other than not having enough citations, or if you want to dispute the citations, you can tag it (edit: just saw it’s protected, but if you want I can tag it for you) with {{rfd-sense}} and nominate it here. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone who thinks Java == Javascript should be reading a note saying that the two are sometimes confused. The current situation on the article is totally incorrect and misleading. Σ (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I have typed up the citations CodeCat linked to. In the first (from 1996), it seems Litwiller's use of "JAVA" is merely quoting "TOO $HORT", who writes in all caps, which is suboptimal and may disqualify the citation. (Sometimes we're strict about that, sometimes we're not.) I presume more citations can be found? The second looks OK. The third also looks OK. However, I agree with Ruakh that our definition should be something like "either Java or Javascript, when a distinction between the two is not made", not "Javascript"; the citations support this.
@Mareklug, re "only COI administrators such as yourself may do so": the German Wiktionary does have a rule that only admins can close RFVs, but the English Wiktionary does not, and it is common for non-admins to close RFVs. Of course, from time to time newcomers such as yourself show up, never having edited en.Wikt before, and miss that Wiktionary is descriptive, not prescriptive, and close RFVs improperly. Had I seen your closure before CodeCat did, I would have undone it myself. - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the definition so that it makes clear that it's used by people who don't make a distinction. —CodeCat 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are some more cites. It seems that most results for "Java alert" actually refer to JavaScript alerts: [1] [2] It may not be immediately obvious that any of these citations are actually about JavaScript, but some of them mention programming constructs that exist only in JS, like "onBlur". —CodeCat 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well! Changing the definition to something else definitely moves the goal posts, as the saying goes. I have no objection to the NEW definition. Certainly, noting that incompetent usage occurs lies within the mission of a descriptive dictionary. But what we had under the OLD, rfv-ed, definition, however, demanded fightin' words. :) --Mareklug (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a usage note to remove any possibility of anyone thinking we're equating the two, and to explain why we include the sense. I won't object if anyone wants to tweak it further to improve the wording. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks good --Guerillero (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)