Javascript Code Churn Rate?

[Isiah Meadows]

With regards to breaking old code, even breaking 0.001% of sites is far too
many for JS. Believe it or not, for similar reasons, __proto__ was
un-deprecated and standardized. And `contains` was changed to `includes`,
because a library popular in the past broke, and a significant number of
their users don't keep their version up to date.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 09:58 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:

> On 11/10/15 7:41 AM, Ethan Resnick wrote:
> > And how long until they could remove support for the rest of the
> > language altogether?
>
> This makes the fundamental assumption that it's OK to break old things
> just because they're old.  To the extent that the web is used for
> applications, this is probably OK, but for documents this is really a
> bad approach because we (well at least some of us) want those to
> continue to be readable as the web evolves.  Otherwise we end up with a
> "dark ages" later on where things that appeared in print continue to be
> readable while later digital stuff, even if still available, is not.
>
> And in this case "documents" includes things like interactive New York
> Times stuff and whatnot...
>
> -Boris
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151110/4201b1d5/attachment-0001.html>