On ES.next features prototype implementations in web browsers

Douglas Crockford douglas at crockford.com
Mon Aug 15 13:21:23 PDT 2011


On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> We've been extending JS in SpiderMonkey forever. Had we not, it's hard 
> to say what would have happened. One anecote: getters and setters were 
> something I added over a decade ago, such that when Firefox took 
> enough share from IE that by 2005, the live.com properties (live maps, 
> I believe) used getters and setters on Firefox to emulate IE's 
> non-standard DOM. This caused very rapid reverse-engineering of 
> getters and setters in Safari and Opera. I'm not relating this to tell 
> a story with a clean "moral". Some of this was accidental, but much of 
> it was game theory. Had we hidden getters and setters behind a flag, 
> I'm not sure what Microsoft's web developers would have done. Probably 
> use an Ajax library that did not require IE DOM quirk emulation
I think you are probably right. They could have done a good thing, but 
getters and setters gave them a license to continue doing the bad thing. 
So ultimately they took a lot longer to finally adopt jQuery.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list