iteration order for Object

Charles Kendrick charles at
Fri Mar 11 11:49:27 PST 2011

Hello John, I'll assume you meant this as humor since the analogy has such obvious flaws.

Having a default strategy on Object of maintaining order obviously does not preclude other 
strategies, nor does it damage the JavaScript language itself, as locking int to 16 bits would 
obviously have damaged C by requiring various new types.

On 3/11/2011 11:44 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Charles Kendrick <charles at
> <mailto:charles at>> wrote:
>     However as far as the default strategy, the highest value thing to do seems to me to impose
>     the de-facto standard of 15 years - insertion order - which is a very useful behavior and
>     will avoid thousands of websites having to compensate for a change in de-facto standard
>     behavior.
> So I suppose you think C should have kept int at 16 bits since there was lots of Win16 code
> that assumed sizeof(int)==2 because it happened to work on their platform, or likewise
> sizeof(int)==sizeof(char*)?  Things unspecified in the spec mean "unspecified" -- it doesn't
> mean "rely on whatever behavior the implementation you use exhibits and expect it to be portable".
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google

More information about the es-discuss mailing list