"no strict"; directive

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 08:54:57 PST 2012


I am still a big fun of what made JS easy to use, develop, learn since born
... the ability to include a script in a HTML page and run it without being
forced of using different tools in the middle before results or even
requiring a web server at all.

I remember once I've read that scripting was cool 'cause no time wasted
compiling ... those days are gone in modern JS development.

br


On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Alex Russell <alex at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "use strict" is removed from code by default ... this is where it goes
> once
> > minified: nowhere.
> >
> > I would rather force a minifier explicitly to remove it rather than force
> > it to keep it for ES5 ... also ES5 is not use strict so I don't get this
> > Closure Compiler choice.
> >
> > I don't see minified code with "use strict" that often
>
> All this suggests is that we need to improve the state of play in tools.
> Sounds doable.
>
> That said, you've gotten good answers that you don't like. It happens, and
> it's better than not getting an answer or getting a bad one.
>
> The polyfill you're working on can be accomplished other ways (
> http://code.google.com/p/traceur-compiler/). There's always a tax for
> emulating the new thing with the old, and this case that's caller. More to
> the point, it's a polyfill; once ES6 lands in engines, class syntax will
> give you super() for free, complete with whatever optimizations make sense.
>
> If you have performance issues, I recommend what everyone else here has:
> write benchmarks and file bugs. Beyond that, I think this horse is both
> dead and beaten.
>
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Said that, I would rather force removal of "use strict" 'cause if there
> >>> is explicit desire from the developer. Isn't it?
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you mean? "use strict" is not going away. It is used by some
> >> developers. I had a show of hands at JSConf.au, definitely a minority
> but
> >> significant.
> >>
> >> You are barking up the wrong tree. And Angus's abuses of 'with' are
> >> unjustified. Yes, "be water". Yes, masters may break rules students must
> >> follow. None of that philosophizing justifies 'with' abusage or
> >> repealing/undoing "use strict".
> >>
> >> /be
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> --
> Alex Russell
> slightlyoff at google.com
> slightlyoff at chromium.org
> alex at dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121116/8f4eedd4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list