classes and enumerability

Boris Zbarsky bzbarsky at
Wed Dec 24 21:50:28 PST 2014

On 12/24/14 9:34 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Something is quirky if we want mostly-consistent non-enumerability of
> proto-methods/accessors. Either core built-ins, or DOM. Sorry if
> "quirky" sounds pejorative

It sure does at least to me.

> Hey, it's me, the JS perpetrator, here :-P.

Yes, I know.  ;)

> I assure you I was not suffering from us v. them or multiple
> personalities back then! :-P

Good.  :)

> Seriously, the main problem over time has been W3C vs. Ecma, but I'm not
> blaming the standards bodies (only or mostly). It's a separation of
> concerns that mixed badly with Java heads, XML heads, and the IE
> monopoly. Bygones.

Indeed.  I wish this was bygones, though...  Would love us to get there.

> Back to the present: we have to pick a "default" setting. I think
> non-enumerability wins, as noted.

That's my gut feeling too, esp. if we can de-Conway.

> Anyone have the jwz nostalgia releases of old browsers such as Netscape
> 3?

If you'd asked this question 3 years ago, when I still had access to 
some Solaris workstations with all sorts of old stuff on them, I might 
have been able to do that for you.  Certainly Netscape 4.

That said, web searching suggests might have these things.  I 
expect only the Windows versions are at all likely to be runnable on a 
modern system...


More information about the es-discuss mailing list