excluding features from sloppy mode

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Sat Dec 29 21:05:33 PST 2012


Kevin Smith wrote:
> The more I think about this, the more convinced I get that all new 
> syntax and breaking changes (where possible) should be strict-mode 
> only.  In retrospect, `let[x] = y;` changed everything.  Here's why I 
> think "1JS under strict" is the best solution:
>
> - How exactly would one teach that classes, arrows, etc. are all 
> available in sloppy mode, but "let" is not?  The reason is obscure for 
> a casual user.  It's going to seem arbitrary.  On the other hand, "1JS 
> under strict" is quite easy to teach.

Ease of teaching != successfully imparted knowledge at scale. Sorry, but 
it's true. People don't use "use strict"; at top level enough, and 
teaching them all will take time. Even then, because of the Law of Least 
Effort, it'll be left out.

This is the major objection some of us keep raising, and you don't 
engage with it. Please do!

> - It creates a clean, linear evolution for javascript syntax:  ES3 > 
> ES5 strict > ES6 > ES7.

I would use < for that relation, but it's not a subset relation due to 
the non-early-error, runtime-semantic-shifts of ES5 strict.

Also, enough pretty (if inaccurate) diagrams! User-facing complexity, 
developer ergonomics, usability matter more than Platonic prettiness. 
There, I said it :-P.

> - It eliminates the so-called "micro-modes" in function heads.

A canard, or at most a quibble about banning duplicate formals in the 
present of destructuring, which I am prepared to negotiate away. Please 
don't repeat it carelessly.

> - It gets everyone moving in the same direction:  strict mode.

In your dreams, but in reality the sprawl is large and in several direction.

> - It eliminates subjective questions about what constructs should be 
> implicitly strict.

There's nothing subjective about such questions, any more than your 
contentions about strict mode being objective. In practice people will 
not use strict when they might, and making ES6 features available only 
under "use strict" will, ceteris paribus, lead to less adoption of ES6 
than otherwise.

> To be clear, I'm proposing that:
>
> 1) All new syntax

New syntax is not a breaking change (as you use that phrase).

> and breaking changes (where possible)

Why the "(where possible)"?

> are strict-mode only.

If you believe in strict mode so strongly, why not make all new syntax 
with a body-form be implicitly strict in that body's code?

> 2) Modules and only modules are implicitly strict.

Whew! You seemed to throw this out in your lede, really till here.

> Why not?
>
> Lurkers out there!  Would anyone be opposed to opting-in to new ES6 
> syntax by either (a) "use strict" or (b) modules?

I know, you're tired of hearing from me. I'll subside for a while. 
However, you know there are issues with strict mode, not all 
"superstition". Ignoring them, pretending they do not hamper adoption, 
dodges the central objection to your proposal: that by yoking ES6 
feature adoption to strict mode adoption, you multiply risks and reduce 
ES6 adoption.

/be
>
> { Kevin }


More information about the es-discuss mailing list