Pro tip: Go straight for ECMAScript 5, don't waste your time on 3. With CL-JavaScript (http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/cl-javascript) we also thought 3 would be easier, but now we regret our decision:
- The ECMA5 document is (slightly) easier to read.
- Most 'extra' ECMA5 features can be added later, piecemeal, so initial development doesn't have to be more complicated.
- People will want ECMA5 eventually anyway.
- It is a waste of time to work through two ugly standards when one would have sufficed.
Comments
Pro tip: Go straight for ECMAScript 5, don't waste your time on 3. With CL-JavaScript (http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/cl-javascript) we also thought 3 would be easier, but now we regret our decision:
- The ECMA5 document is (slightly) easier to read.
- Most 'extra' ECMA5 features can be added later, piecemeal, so initial development doesn't have to be more complicated.
- People will want ECMA5 eventually anyway.
- It is a waste of time to work through two ugly standards when one would have sufficed.