brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Oct 29 11:14:10 PDT 2007
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Is there any reason browser vendors couldn't continue to ship the
> old ES3 interpreter, and make it available for <script type="text/
Browsers not bundled with operating systems, therefore downloaded
voluntarily by users, cannot afford two engines. Even more to the
point: browsers targeting phones and other small devices cannot
afford two engines. And there is no need for two engines, since ES4
is a superset of ES3.
The overview discusses this a bit; so do my posts at the LtU thread.
See in particular:
Note the cyclic leak problem, a subset of the distributed GC problem.
> That way, ES4 would not be capable of breaking anything, because
> the same old ES3 interpreter would be running old code.
ES4 as implemented won't break any ES3 code, if we do our jobs -- and
we are, in full view of everyone here (see http://bugs.ecmascript.org/).
The nice thing about the assertion that ES4 will break the web is
that it is falsifiable within the next year. But it's also nonsense
based on recent history, and on first principles.
The general "break the web" argument against JS evolution is old as
the hills. We've been evolving the language in Mozilla for years,
feeding results into Editions 2-4, while also engineering more IE
compatibility in order to help Firefox gain market share. Obviously
something is working.
The "break the web" sky did not fall, and it won't fall on account of
ES4. The best thing Microsoft could hope for would be other browsers
committing suicide by breaking the web. We at Mozilla are anything
But again, two engines don't cut it, for footprint and memory
reasons. And two engines are intentionally unnecessary by the design
More information about the Es4-discuss