B.3.1 The __proto__ pseudo property

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Wed May 8 13:58:28 PDT 2013

Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 18:06, David Bruant<bruant.d at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Le 08/05/2013 08:01, Andreas Rossberg a écrit :
>>> On 8 May 2013 07:10, Mark Miller<erights at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> What would be gained by
>>>> moving the property alone to Annex B? If nothing, then I think this
>>>> consistency should win.
>>> JavaScript implementations in new or existing eco systems that are not
>>> poisoned by web legacy wouldn't be obliged to support it. It's the
>>> difference between acknowledging web reality and forcing web reality
>>> on everybody.
>> What are you saying? V8 releases versions where annoying and ugly de facto
>> standards are out so that software built on top of Node.js, MongoDB and
>> other embedders only use a cleaner JS? Awesome! ;-)
> That would be an option -- I'd very much like to move some of these
> things behind a flag.

But not __proto__ -- dream on if you think that is going away any time soon!

I see two problems:

1. Dumping stuff into Annex B to show disdain. This is pride, bad for 
the soul.

2. More important: people port code from the web. In what future 
super-web will we start fresh?

Let's do right by implementations and users, and not pretend mandatory 
stuff is optional. Let's not try to polish a turd, and actively be 
prideful about the result -- especially if our officially better 
polished form is as verbose as Object.setPrototypeOf or Object.create in 


More information about the es-discuss mailing list