Octal literals have their uses (you Unix haters skip this one)

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 16:04:28 PST 2012


Le 13/01/2012 19:15, Brendan Eich a écrit :
> Lasse Reichstein:
>> It might be changed if there was an actual advantage for the
>> programmers in using strict mode, which there hasn't been
I heard some got burnt by a missing "var" [1]. Strict mode and a bit of
testing could have prevented this blog post from existing.
If strict mode only had introduced this change, I would consider it
worthwhile.

>> it's not faster, it's not simpler, and it's not what they are used to
I recently suggested a newcomers to the language to always be in strict
mode ;-)

>> and being more compatible between ECMAScript implementations makes no
>> difference when writing for just node.js.
>
> This part I agree with. Strict mode did some good things we like (all
> the early errors, basically). The runtime meaning shifts and their
> implications for performance (at least, without new optimization
> effort on the part of implementors, who face little incentive without
> adoption -- which won't be forthcoming without performance) were not good.
Regarding performance, I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.
It's always possible to develop in strict mode and deploy as non-strict
if the performance difference really matters.
Code written with in strict mode and with decent discipline (not
assuming anything on the 'this' value of a function used as a function,
for instance, etc.) should run fine in non-strict, no?

David

[1]
http://blog.meloncard.com/post/12175941935/how-one-missing-var-ruined-our-launch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120115/39569edb/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list