New private names proposal

Brendan Eich brendan at
Wed Dec 22 21:14:20 PST 2010

On Dec 22, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

> On 2010-12-23 02:48, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2010, at 6:39 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>>> Inspectors can bypass encapsulation regardless of the language spec.
>> The Inspector is written in ES5. How does it bypass soft field strong encapsulation?
> I meant, obviously, that inspectors in general can bypass encapsulation.

I gave an example where weak encapsulation wins and you want to generalize it to include native-code-hosted inspectors. Nope.

> OK, you're assuming that the inspector can't read state from closures.

It's an object inspector.

> So why does it matter that it can't read private fields, given that the
> programmer would probably have used closures if they were not using
> private fields?

We starving startup programmers would probably have done what you wish to change the example? Nope.

> The constraint that the inspector be written in ES5 seems to be a purely
> artificial one. All of the commonly used browsers have debugger extensions.

Nope, our little startup (mine, MonkeyBob's, and ReliableFred's -- plus the boss) is writing a cross-browser framework and app. No native code, let alone deoptimizing magic VM-ported code for each top JS VM.

>> Please reply in <500 words.
> No, I'm not going to play your word-counting game.

876. Game over.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list