Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not be web-compatible
jason.orendorff at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 16:24:53 PDT 2014
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 not
> 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.
More information about the es-discuss