allen at wirfs-brock.com
Mon Oct 2 18:34:19 UTC 2017
Another important characteristic we look for in proposals is orthogonality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science>
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Ben Newman <benjamin at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Taking a step back from the details of this proposal, I have some thoughts about why it seems to be struggling to find support.
> In no particular order, I would say this proposal
> relies on microbenchmarks, which can be misleading <https://tomdale.net/2017/07/adventures-in-microbenchmarking/>
> disregards Amdahl's Law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law>, by pretending that real-world JS CPU usage is commonly/ever dominated by min/max computations
> replaces two O(n) loops with another O(n) loop that does slightly more work on each iteration, resulting in no complexity improvement, and a fairly modest (< 2x) constant factor improvement
> doesn't seem to provide usability/learnability improvements for any particular group of JS developers (for example, novice programmers)
> doesn't seem to prevent any common bugs in JS code
> As a member of TC39, I regret that we have not provided a clearer set of criteria for what it takes to get a new function into the standard library. While I can't speak for the committee as a whole, my suspicion is that this proposal is unlikely to meet that standard. It's a fine idea, but so are many other functions that you can implement in a normal (non-standard) library.
> I would also challenge the committee to think about (or link to!) any concrete written criteria that someone with an idea for a proposal could use to assess its chances of acceptance. Imagine how much time we could save!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss