An update on Object.observe

Alexander Jones alex at weej.com
Tue Nov 3 11:26:29 UTC 2015


In my opinion, the fundamental record type we build our JS on should be
getting dumber, not smarter. It feels inappropriate to be piling more
difficult-to-reason-about mechanisms on top before reeling in exotic host
objects. With Proxy out of the bag, I'm not so hopeful for the humble
Object anymore.

On Tuesday, 3 November 2015, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sure thing, meanwhile polymer or other libraries need to pollute getters
> and setters and the rest of the web have been trying to polyfill it for at
> least 6 years now *
>
> The reason is not widely "abused" is that it never made it as standard and
> as it is feels like an outdated spec. Proxy would give us that and much
> more, unfortunately proxies do not play so well cross environment. For
> instance, I've tried to use them in GJS ( Gtk+3 JavaScript bindings ) and
> while Object.prototype.watch always works, proxied GObjects fail to be used
> like these were just GObjects.
>
> That might be a specific env problem though, but having a way to watch
> properties, specially in two ways bindings scenarios, is a very needed
> common thing.
> As example, in DOMClass I'm replacing native getters/setters to be
> notified about changes, it doesn't feel right even if it works.
>
> All this is over-off-topic though, so I might just stop.
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> * just few examples since 2009
> https://gist.github.com/eligrey/384583
> https://gist.github.com/adriengibrat/b0ee333dc1b058a22b66
> question in SO
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1029241/javascript-object-watch-for-all-browsers
> http://deploytonenyures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/objectwatch-polyfill.html
>
> https://code.google.com/p/chtor/source/browse/chtor/chrome/js/object-watch.js?spec=svn2c00820d48169bb678a00447e295fb31dcf448ed&r=2c00820d48169bb678a00447e295fb31dcf448ed
>
> yes, I've done that too
> in 2009
> http://webreflection.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/internet-explorer-object-watch.html
> and recently https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/366dc38574dc526308b5
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bzbarsky at mit.edu');>> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/15 4:55 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Benoit and I think there is a reason
>>> `Object.prototype.watch` is still in Firefox and  won't go away any time
>>> soon
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know the only reason it's there and hasn't been removed is
>> because it's used to implement debugger watchpoints [1].  And the only
>> reason it's web-exposed is because SpiderMonkey has not prioritized being
>> able to expose APIs to privileged code but not the web (something that
>> think should get fixed).
>>
>> -Boris
>>
>> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=934669
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20151103/1f256332/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list