Do Anonymous Exports Solve the Backwards Compatibility Problem?

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at google.com
Thu Dec 20 12:47:19 PST 2012


On 20 December 2012 19:39, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.


Sorry, what I wrote may have been a bit unclear. I didn't try to argue
against features in general. I agree that it is important to grow a
language where the need arises. What I argued against was the particular
approach of accumulating all sorts of ad hoc features and extensions in one
monolithic language concept.

/Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121220/7357791b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list