bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 04:07:56 PDT 2013
Le 13/04/2013 03:31, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
> Do you read internet where every developer calls __proto__ ugly ?
I do read the Internet . I believe Brendan and all TC39 do too.
Let's be super careful when using
"every"/"all"/"no"/"none"/"always"/"never" and other superlatives.
History happened in the following order:
1) Mobile was pretty much WebKit-based only (at least that's what some
devs have taken it)
2) Relevant WebKit-based browsers all have __proto__
3) Content (like Zepto) started to make the assumption that web browsers
do have __proto__.
4) Content (like Zepto) got popular and this created an incentive for IE
to support __proto__  (among other things I imagine)
5) Microsoft will certainly implement __proto__ no matter what. This is
apparently confirmed by folks who studied the leaked IE11 
The 5 points are facts (the last is an assumption, but a strong one).
Now, given these facts, what are the choices left to TC39?
1) Ignore reality. Hopefully, we will all agree that this would be plain
2) Standardize __proto__
Andrea: I and probably everyone else is as frustrated as you are of
__proto__ standardization. But the above 5-points history is what it is;
sorry for the self-quote, but "Web technologies are ugly and there is no
way back..." .
The only alternative to standardizing __proto__ is not standardizing it
and it's a worse idea (because of interoperability issues that would
arise). __proto__ is happening in ES6 not because people actively want
it, but because it's better than any other alternatives.
As I've repeated multiple times on the list, a feature being part of the
standard doesn't make it a legitimate feature that web developers should
seek to use (to a large extent, Crockford with his "good parts" said the
exact same thing).
I read not introducing setPrototypeOf *also* as a social/political move
to say to devs "TC39 is aware __proto__ is an awful monster that we have
to bring to the standard, but we do not consider it as a recommended
feature". But the standard cannot document the history of features. It
also is neutral on what should be used by devs.
It's up to us (JS devs), to decide which parts we promote and use and
which parts we think are stupid in the language. It's not up to TC39
(though obviously they have their opinions).
Feel free to contribute to ECMAScript Regrets :-) It seems like a more
appropriate place to rant about __proto__ and why it should be avoided
by devs than es-discuss.
More information about the es-discuss