Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not beweb-compatible

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 23:56:59 PDT 2014


 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.

-----Original Message-----
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 beweb-compatible

So put ES7 features behind a flag until the water clears a bit. We'll get there.

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.


JDD


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 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.

-j

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141001/a6942e74/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list