Lastest ES6 draft (rev 14) now available

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 8 23:23:17 PST 2013


my point is: with something deprecated via "use strict" I could simulate a
behavior that is not possible to simulate anymore with the "new language
features"

Usually, above concept, is called "step backward" and I am interested into
polyfills able to work 100% 'cause developers are kinda "scared" these days
to adopt weird solutions that simply works, or new standards that no
polyfill can make.

Nothing more than this



On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>> which part is LOL about caller I don't get it and LOL as argument, from
>> you, is more LOL than caller, IMO.
>>
>> Sad to see this attitude 'cause I've raised a problem that cannot be
>> transpired, what here and there many of you are convinced is the right
>> thing to do in order to have graceful migration to new standards.
>>
>
> You're not taking the point that languages grow their kernel semantics,
> which means not everything desugars to older versions via "transpilation".
> This is part of the Harmony
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/**doku.php?id=harmony:harmony<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:harmony>
>
> "Minimize the additional semantic state needed beyond ES5" does not mean
> "Minimize to zero".
>
> Sorry for LOLs, I just think given the fact that some semantics are new
> must be accepted, and transpilers may have to work harder and at the edges
> be compilers with more complex runtimes. But as I tried to suggest, for
> most -- or let's say "much" -- code there's a simpler translation.
>
> /be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130308/c4980d4c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list