"no strict"; directive

Alex Russell alex at dojotoolkit.org
Fri Nov 16 12:38:53 PST 2012


I'm a huge fan of that too -- you know I don't like compilers as the answer
-- but that approach always comes with limits; and that's OK. What we add
to the spec lives forever; not just through the transition. We owe it to
ourselves and our users to introduce the least crazy we can while still
solving the most pressing problems; and to do it with an eye toward living
in the future were specing. Caller doesn't pass this smell test.
On Nov 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121116/20974688/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list