thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules

[Andrea Giammarchi]

more specific, I still have one precedent case:

"I sent out a survey 2 weeks ago and received 381 responses, 256 for
return-this and 125 for return something else (undefined, the new length or
size, the value)."

A survey not proposed here, a survey proposed as result after already made
decision.

If this is never the case I'd like to to think there won't be other
exceptions but ... you know, maybe there are other surveys we don't know.

http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-%28Map%7CSet%7CWeakMap%29-set%28%29-returns-%60this%60---p34759053.html

Last, but not least, I know everyone here is doing what is best and with
best intentions, however, I'd like to see that focus is still on what
really matters.

FirefoxOS is exposing Parallel Arrays ... plus in the wiki there are typed
definition struct likes that are implemented nowhere and are one of the
best thing ever possibly landed in JavaScript.

Where are these **needed** things? If no need to discuss, why these are not
implemented yet?

http://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/js-ctypes?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=js-ctypes


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:33 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Le 11/02/2013 00:53, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>
> involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide *already
> decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools* nobody
> ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen)
>
> hmm... I had skipped that part initially.
> There are some accusations here and, as a JS dev, non-TC39 members, I'd
> like to say that I disagree strongly.
>
> Here are a handful of public things related to TC39:
> 1) es-discuss
> 2) meeting notes with extra care and formatting since recently
> https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes
> 3) http://wiki.ecmascript.org where drafts and accepted ideas are
> documented
> 4) bugs.ecmascript.org
> 5) spec drafts [1] are released on a monthly-basis
>
> I recently questioned a feature [2], based on this public material. Public
> discussion happened. I'm balanced on the de-facto conclusion, but the least
> we can agree on is that a public discussion happened.
> I'm willing to agree on a lot of things like:
> * the different communication channels create confusion
> * the wiki isn't always up-to-date (Rick did some good cleaning job
> recently, though)
> * some discussions on es-discuss aren't documented in a condensed format
> and re-happen in some cases
> * maybe on occasions Allen is too quick in adding things to the spec
> drafts (WeakMap.prototype.clear case), etc.
> I personally put all these issues on the fact that TC39 is a group of
> human beings. They make mistake like any other group of human beings. They
> haven't fully solved the "efficient communication problem", but no one has.
> At least, these errors are public. They may make a barrier to participation
> higher than what we'd wish, but I wouldn't think it's on purpose and you
> can propose ideas to solve this problem. I have thought about it several
> times and haven't found a satisfactory solution yet.
>
> Accusing of internal decisions based on internal pools may be a step too
> far. Please be more specific in your accusations so we can discuss things
> as I did with WeakMap.prototype.clear. The blurry finger-pointing game
> isn't moving anything forward.
>
>
> On listening to JS devs:
> 1) over the last couple of years, (at least) Dave Herman and Brendan Eich
> have been dev-conf-crawling with ES6/future of JavaScript talks, asking for
> feedback and involvement from the JS devs community. They could have chosen
> to talk about other things or not talk at all.
> 2) Rick Waldron and Yehuda Katz who could be easily labeled as coming from
> the JS dev community have joined TC39.
>
> What else do you want? "involve many devs". Maybe devs should get
> involved. I felt concerned about the future of ECMAScript I stepped up.
> I find particularly ironic that some in the Node.js community are bitching
> about what happens for modules after saying [3]: "We have these standards
> body [ECMA is cited] and Node made a very very conscious effort to ignore
> them and have pretty much nothing to do with them".
> It feels to me that the Node community is discovering that what they are a
> part of the JavaScript ecosystem, that ECMAScript and TC39 are part of this
> ecosystem too and they should felt concerned about what's happening to
> ECMAScript. Hopefully, they'll discover soon enough that they can send
> feedback based on their experience to affect TC39 decisions.
> I feel dev involvement boils down to a very simple cost/benefit analysis.
> Either you feel concerned about the future of JavaScript enough to get
> involved in discussions that affect your future. Or you're too busy making
> things happen [4] and that's cool, but you've chosen your priority and that
> is not the future of JavaScript.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts
> [2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-January/028351.html
> [3]
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GaqxIMLLOu8#t=1094s
> [4] https://twitter.com/substack/status/300085464835174401
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130211/13d7d569/attachment.html>