Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not beweb-compatible
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 08:49:20 PDT 2014
FYI: from a MooTools core developer:
Just to close this chapter/thread with some external outcome.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> many MDN examples are on jsfiddle ...maybe one of the reasons? Although I
> wasn't suggesting to break everything, rather saying that changing name
> should not be an option.
> From: John-David Dalton <john.david.dalton at gmail.com>
> Sent: 01/10/2014 00:54
> To: Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>; es-discuss
> <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> Subject: Re: Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not
> So put ES7 features behind a flag until the water clears a bit. We'll get
> It kind of surprises me (a good surprise) that now, because of JSFiddle,
> there's super interest in MooTools. When in the past, when MooTools was
> arguably more popular, it didn't stop the language and browsers from
> breaking them over and over again.
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Jason Orendorff <
> jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm personally against unmaintained code and/or websites but here it's
>> > ES7 breaking the web, it's a library already broken (somehow) due native
>> > prototype pollution without a mechanism to prevent these, apparently
>> > historically known, problems.
>> Either way, you're telling me I should ship a browser that chokes on
>> thousands of web sites that work fine today. That would be bad for our
>> users, so I'm not planning on doing that.
>> > it is also already patched and it's also a small fix.
>> The 6.5% of existing web sites using JS libraries that use MooTools
>> have not been "already patched". Patching 3.5 million web sites is not
>> a "small fix" in any relevant sense. It simply will not be done
>> thoroughly or soon.
>> > If sites and developers have no reason to update code 'cause ES7 cannot
>> > release until they'll change a file ... why would they anyway.
>> Yes. You have correctly identified incentives as a problem.
>> That does not constitute a reductio proof that browser vendors must
>> ignore their users' interests and break the web. "Reductio ad
>> the-world-is-not-as-I-wish-it-to-be" is not a thing.
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss