"no strict"; directive

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 13:01:12 PST 2012

P.S. Alex, just to be as clear as possible, one answer I did not like that
much was that eval('"no strict"') nonsense ... that was not an answer
'cause problems are the same with eval('"use strict"') and we, JS
developers, are not always noobs or dumb.

It happens, from time to time, that we know what we are talking about and
why we need this or that thing.

It's nice when here we keep it easy and quite ... it's also rare, imho.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> neither does `with` so the day use strict will be the default 90% of tests
> frameworks will nicely break as well.
> There are tons of libraries still based on ES3 and those "evil" things.
> I am the first one to use always latest, and use strict too, but there are
> cases where those "evil" things cannot be replaced and maybe are useful and
> for good.
> As long as there is a "no strict" behavior supported by engines I am good
> in any case but it's a pity we cannot have that solution today .. is the
> only one that makes sense out there, the only that does not suffer all
> other problems plus does not impact performance of each methods when super
> call is something actually not that common or not always needed when
> inheritance is in place.
> I've solved this a while ago with a better approach, even better than the
> currently de-sugared TypeScript, but developers are lazy and this new
> solution would have made them happy in their laziness.
> Thank everyone in any case for all inputs and thoughts and facts, I guess
> I am done here.
> br
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Alex Russell <alex at dojotoolkit.org>wrote:
>> 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/edd6fc51/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list