Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at
Mon Oct 2 18:34:19 UTC 2017

Another important characteristic we look for in proposals is orthogonality: <> 

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Ben Newman <benjamin at> 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 <>
> disregards Amdahl's 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!
> Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list