excluding features from sloppy mode

Kevin Smith khs4473 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 28 19:43:58 PST 2012

> 1. Except for module.


> 2. Non-locality of "use strict" in the medium-to-large makes for an
> effectively invisible, or at least hard to see as in effect, switch.

Mmmm.. maybe.

> So are you in favor of class body as strict by default?

You mean as always strict?  I wasn't when I wrote that, but now I'm
thinking that "classes are always strict" would probably be acceptable.  I
would definitely hold the line at modules and classes, though.

There must be a lot of Node-only modules that I tend to look at.

Well, that'll rot your brain!  : P

I hope you're right, but is after a year and a half really what you meant
> by "ultimately"? I see a fight, not taking sides or blaming anyone. JS is
> big enough and multi-paradigm enough that multiple schools of thought
> already hold sway over large factions of developers. The amount of legacy
> code is quite large, too.

Sheesh - I tried desperately to bridge those gaps back in 2010 when I was
into CommonJS.  Blast from the past:


Oh well...

It's really encouraging to see the level of commitment to good design here
on this list and on the committee in general.  Good design will prevail -
I'm not worried!

{ Kevin }
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121228/b0883f2b/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list