SpiderMonkey

I find it strange that my edit has been reversed, considering that it is the only official JavaScript engine, directly from the author of the language. Moreover, it's not only used by the Mozilla browsers, but to extend C applications as well (I myself use it for this purpose).

Of course, there are other ECMAScript implementations, but JavaScript is actually the name of the Mozilla implementation of ECMAScript. I am wondering if the article should be renamed to ECMAScript, possibly, in this reguard...

Side note: JavaScript is not exactly the same as JScript, which violates ECMA on several accounts

--66.11.179.30 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well. This is just a simply list of engines. No need to put too much information here. --minghong 06:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article vs. List of ECMAScript engines

It is simply confusing to have both. I for one can't tell why these two lists are different and how does one decide whether a particular implementation goes in the ECMAScript list, JS list, or both. (And the pages don't explain that either). For example, is Narcissus not ECMAScript interpreter? --asqueella 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]