A few arrow function specification issues
brendan at mozilla.org
Tue Apr 24 13:28:35 PDT 2012
Douglas Crockford wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 6:41 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> <allen at wirfs-brock.com <mailto:allen at wirfs-brock.com>> wrote:
>> The point is that much of what is done on the web is not high
>> integrity computation. It is essential that high integrity be
>> possible, when it is required. But forcing all computation into the
>> high integrity category seems like as bad an idea as forcing all
>> computation to be low integrity. I really wonder how successful JS
>> would have been if it had started out as a high integrity language.
>> Yes, I think that's a good point.
> No, that is not a good point. The strange ascendance of JS can best be
> described as miraculous. It succeed despite its low integrity, not
> because of it.
> Our problem is not to figure out how to make this language popular. We
> have somehow already managed that through amazing luck.
> I think our problem now is to disarm the array of toeguns while
> minimizing breakage as much as possible, and to avoid installing new
> toeguns. I think a focus on high integrity gives us a useful discipline.
Of course we'll never know, but I've argued something I *do* know: I
made JS mutable by default (all objects, almost all properties safe
constructor.prototype and perhaps some DOM ones) in 1995 because I knew
developers would have to monkey-patch it right away. I was counting on
that non-miracle to help save it.
More information about the es-discuss