dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 16:43:53 PDT 2008
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Douglas Crockford
<douglas at crockford.com> wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
> > And over-minimizing a language imposes a complexity tax on programmers
> > using it.
That is true.
> > To decide whether to evolve JS or shrink it, you need only look at two
> > things: 1) problems JS hackers run into every day, which are not solved
> > by more idiomatic functional programming hacks that add cycle and space
> > bloat to their libraries and applications; 2) competition from other
> > languages in runtimes vying to displace the browser.
> I think this is the specific point of disagreement. Complexity in a language
> does not necessarily reduce the complexity of programs.
Not necessarily, but to be specific, simply adding 'private' access
modifier would avoid a closure. This is good because its a lot more
convenient and a lot clearer.
I think the opposite may
> be truer. The difficulties we have had in the development community since 1999
> were not due to over-minimization. They were due to features that did not work
> as expected or reliably over the various brands and versions.
That is true. Implementation differences are significant difficulties.
Other difficulties had to do with browser differences/competing
technology platforms (<layer>, document.all).
There are also limitations to the language itself that cause problems
(no access modifiers, limited typechecking, enumeration). I disagree
that limitations in the language did not cause difficulties. I think
the opposite is true. I think that developers ran into problems when
trying to add to Object.prototype. I think developers have struggled
trying to figure out if [some_object] was a function or array. I think
that developers exploited closures for all that closures had to offer.
Closures are the most useful thing we have because there simply aren't
other alternatives available.
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the Es4-discuss