excluding features from sloppy mode
axel at rauschma.de
Sat Dec 29 05:51:11 PST 2012
I’m sympathetic to both sides of this argument. How would you handle things?
On Dec 29, 2012, at 14:47 , Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> I haven't replied to this thread yet, because I feel that I already
> made all the same arguments repeatedly to no avail. ;) However, let
> me reiterate one particular observation, which is that IMHO much of
> the discussion (and decision making) around 1JS, modes, and opt-ins is
> just mistargeted.
> Namely, it is primarily based on the expectations and needs of
> _current_ users. Users that are aware of what's ES3 or 5 and who are
> about to investigate what's new in ES6. To those users, design choices
> like making new constructs opt into strict mode by default will not
> seem a big deal, even natural.
> But that group will be irrelevant after a relatively short time of transition!
> ES6+ will stay much longer (at least that's what we are working for).
> Consequently, what should take precedence are the expectations and
> needs of _future_ users of ES. Those who will come to ES6+ without
> knowing nor caring about the colorful history of its earlier versions.
> For them, having various features locally change the semantics of
> unrelated constructs will be surprising at best. It means having to
> remember a seemingly random set of rules for what semantics is active
> The more such rules there are, and the more fine-grained they are, the
> less readable code becomes, and the more error-prone programming and,
> particularly, refactoring will be -- not just for the current
> generation of ES programmers, but for all generations to come. IMHO,
> that is the wrong trade-off entirely.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss