Hi, On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Xan Lopez <[email protected]> wrote: > - They claim not all the extensions are well thought out, and that > some of them make the language more complex and harder to implement in > an efficient and high-performing way (the specific example for this > was 'let'). I have no opinion on this matter, but I think it's worth > to know what they think. > - Using non-standard extensions makes your life harder if the moment > ever comes when you'd like to switch to another JS engine (which is > what is happening right now, fwiw). > - Using non-standard extensions makes it harder to transfer code from > the Web to GNOME (and viceversa), which is IHMO one of the biggest > points in favor of using JS. > > So perhaps it would be a good idea to just stick to a JS defined in > some standard widely used for all GNOME code, in order to avoid future > headaches, and consider other languages with real self-extension > capabilities if we are really serious about "using whatever dialects > make our life easier" (<mandatory plug for the Lisp family of > languages>).
The problem is that JS-with-a-few-basic-enhancements is just _so_ much better than least-common-denominator-web-JS. There's no need to go down a slippery slope of a million enhancements, just to fix some basic stuff... like variable scoping. Web JS is why people think "ugh, JavaScript" You can always suck web JS into GNOME, but the vice-versa was hosed as soon as we added a module system for example. Not to mention gobject-introspection APIs. Havoc _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
