<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Simon Willison's Weblog: harmony</title><link href="http://simonwillison.net/" rel="alternate"/><link href="http://simonwillison.net/tags/harmony.atom" rel="self"/><id>http://simonwillison.net/</id><updated>2008-08-14T09:37:18+00:00</updated><author><name>Simon Willison</name></author><entry><title>ECMAScript Harmony</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2008/Aug/14/harmony/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2008-08-14T09:37:18+00:00</published><updated>2008-08-14T09:37:18+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2008/Aug/14/harmony/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="http://ejohn.org/blog/ecmascript-harmony/"&gt;ECMAScript Harmony&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
John Resig explains the outcome of the recent “Oslo meeting” where proponents of ECMAScript 3.1 (incremental improvements to JS as it exists today) and 4 (massive, sweeping changes including many new programming constructs) harmonised their differences. The combined effort is closer to 3.1 than it is to 4, which I think is the right decision.


    &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ecmascript"&gt;ecmascript&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/harmony"&gt;harmony&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/javascript"&gt;javascript&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/john-resig"&gt;john-resig&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/oslomeeting"&gt;oslomeeting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;



</summary><category term="ecmascript"/><category term="harmony"/><category term="javascript"/><category term="john-resig"/><category term="oslomeeting"/></entry></feed>