Why to we call JavaScript for Automation “JXA”?

Dumb question, which might have been answered somewhere (but I can’t find it): why do we call JavaScript for Automation “JXA”? I don’t think I have seen that term anywhere else? The obvious label would be “JSA”.


I think you were looking for this marvelous thread :grinning:

As for the “X” in JXA:

I – personally – have always read it as an Italian “x”. In Italian you can (colloquially) write “x” with the meaning ‘per’ (which translates to ‘times’, as in “5×2”, but also ‘for’, as in “per te”, ‘for you’).
Ergo: JavaScript for Automation.

But I guess in English the “X” has some other meaning, not transparent to me.

“JXA” is not a acronym that we invented here. It was established by Apple during the 2014 WWDC:

JavaScript for Automation - WWDC 2014 - Videos - Apple Developer

JavaScript for Automation

Automation in OS X has always been about power and choice. Scriptable applications, including Pages, Keynote, Numbers, and the Finder, can already be automated using a variety of languages, including AppleScript, Objective-C, Perl, Python, and Ruby. With OS X Yosemite, application scripting support has been added to another popular language, JavaScript. JavaScript for Automation (JXA) extends the standard JavaScript environment provided by the JavaScriptCore framework with support for querying and controlling all of the scriptable applications running in OS X. JXA scripts are supported at all layers of the system and can be invoked from the command-line, from the system-wide Script Menu, and can even be distributed as code-signed applications.

WWDC 2014 - Session 306 - macOS

OK, thanks. I’ve watched that video twice, but “JXA” just slid by without my noticing it.