Do Anonymous Exports Solve the Backwards Compatibility Problem?

Brendan Eich brendan at
Thu Dec 20 10:39:44 PST 2012

Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> More importantly, though, convention is one thing, baking it into the 
> language another. I've become deeply skeptical of shoe-horning 
> orthogonal concerns into one "unified" concept at the language level. 
> IME, that approach invariably leads to baroque, kitchen sink style 
> language constructs that yet scale poorly to the general use case. 
> (The typical notion of a class in mainstream OO languages is a perfect 
> example.)

That's a good concern, but not absolute. How do you deal with the 
counterargument that, without macros, the overhead of users having to 
glue together the orthogonal concerns into a compound cliché is too high 
and too error-prone?

> One of the nicer aspects of pre-ES6 JavaScript is that it doesn't have 
> too much of that sort of featurism.

So people keep telling me. Yet I see ongoing costs from all the 
module-pattern, power-constructor-pattern, closure-pattern lack of 
learning, slow learning, mis-learning, fetishization, and bug-habitat 
surface area.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list