> because it's a way better name (much less confusing, given that this lang doesn't have anything to do with Java anyway).

Probably if we were in the early 2000s this could have been a battle worth fighting. But considering we're in 2025 and probably more people are aware of JavaScript than Java at this point, even when you're deep in enterprise-land, I'm not sure it'd be less confusing.

Anyways, you're about two decades too late to this discussion :/

▲

shagie 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From days of old...

Invoking Applet Methods From JavaScript Code - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in...

and

Invoking JavaScript Code From an Applet - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in...

Aside from the "Java is cool, name everything Java" in the early days - there was scripting between the browser and the applet using a language named JavaScript.

▲

bartread 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I actually used this back in the day: once at university, and then again for a telecoms project in my first job.

But it doesn't mean there's much commonality - beyond superficially C-like syntax - between the languages, and certainly not between their "standard libraries" (aka the browser APIs in JavaScript's case).

▲

zdragnar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Eh, JavaScript wasn't the originally chosen name, it was LiveScript by Eich. I've never seen a justification for the name from anyone in the know, other than Eich's musing that Netscape wanted the "cool" factor. That "cool" factor was also why the original task of embedding scheme into the browser turned into a more C/Java-esque flavor.

	▲	shagie 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Java applets can invoke JavaScript functions present in the same web page as the applet. The LiveConnect Specification describes details about how JavaScript code communicates with Java code. https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/deployment/applet/in... > LiveConnect is a feature of web browsers which allows Java applets to communicate with the JavaScript engine in the browser, and JavaScript on the web page to interact with applets. The LiveConnect concept originated in the Netscape web browser, and to this date, Mozilla and Firefox browsers have had the most complete support for LiveConnect features. It has, however, been possible to call between JavaScript and Java in some fashion on all web browsers for a number of years. https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/liveconnect-... -- The naming appears to be confused. https://web.archive.org/web/20101115234856/http://www.oracle... > Improved Java/JavaScript communication. The bridge between the JavaScript engine in the web browser and the Java programming language has been completely reimplemented. The new implementation is backward-compatible and features improved reliability, performance and cross-browser portability, for both Java calling JavaScript as well as JavaScript calling Java. Formerly Mozilla-specific "LiveConnect" functionality, such as the ability to call static Java methods, instantiate new Java objects and reference third-party packages from JavaScript, is now available in all browsers. The "LiveConnect" relating to the original LiveScript maybe? And that LiveConnect was a Netscape/Mozilla driven thing. My point was more one of "JavaScript was the glue between applets and the HTML page itself early in the development of the language." Renaming LiveScript to JavaScript and promoting the LiveConnect functionality wasn't an unreasonable thing at the time.
	▲	chuckadams 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sun was pushing it as a way to script Java applets. Might have even worked out if LiveConnect (the interface layer between Java and JS) wasn't such buggy trash.

▲

bartread 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, I agree with you. I remember being annoyed by the name in 1999 because, as you say, JavaScripts's not got much to do with Java other than both languages being superficially C-like... but I don't see it as being confusing for more time than it takes to read introductory tutorials for each language.

There are more important battles to fight.

▲

heretia 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> probably more people are aware of JavaScript than Java at this point

All the same, I probably get as many calls from recruiters to fill Java positions as I do JS positions. I've never used the former, and explaining it is always awkward!

▲

master-lincoln 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I would tell them they are wasting your time by not offering you fitting jobs. It's on them to know what they are looking for, not on you

▲

singhrac 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be frank this is a service to you. No company you want to work at has a recruiter that doesn't understand the difference (a fully AI recruiter would be better than this experience).

▲

GoblinSlayer 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For normal people Java is a short way to say JavaScript.

▲

spider-mario 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have never heard anyone do that. Do “normal” people even discuss JavaScript?

▲

array_key_first 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think normal people are actually aware what JS and HTML are. Most people are more tech savvy than we give them credit - or credit they might give themselves.

▲

dec0dedab0de 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think normal people don't know the difference between google and a web browser. Even many of the ones that used to understand the difference forgot some time after their primary computing device became a locked down phone.

	▲	booleandilemma 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Can confirm. My wife (who is a very normal person) was using bing the other day and when I pointed it out she asked me what I was talking about and pointed to the chrome browser icon in the taskbar. The level of confusion is almost unfathomable to us.

▲

Capricorn2481 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe 1 in 10000 people who aren't developers.

	▲	array_key_first 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Idk both of my parents do any they're not devs - they don't even have a pc or laptop, they just have a phone. But they DO work in an office, and use a web browser for 8 hours a day.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

thfuran 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think I've ever met one of these people.