I'm +1 on changing to null by default on objects and strings. I know this will improve compatibility with real world ActionScript code that expects null. We can include these in the compiler option to default back to undefined, for anyone that prefers that behavior.
- Josh On Jun 23, 2017 7:45 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Your link is actually arguing for use for non-strict equality… > > I suggest you read the content at the link again [1] perhaps you missed > the humour there. > > So given you don’t want to use strict equality and inequality how do you > want to handle this? Does everyone agree with that not using them despite > just about all modern JS advice is to use them? > > There is as alternative that will fix a lot of the performance issues (but > not all) and that is to default Boolean, Numbers, Object and Strings to a > sensible default rather than undefined. I’ve already done the work for > Boolean and Numbers as not initialising these can causes other bugs. Are > you OK for Objects and Strings to default to null as well? > > Re concerns re increased size it seem the closure compiler handles this > well and there is little or no size difference in the optimised JS > produced. I’ve so far found it to be smaller by a fraction of a %. > > I’ve also raised a JIRA re performance here. [2] > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://herringtondarkholme.github.io/2016/11/05/how-to- > write-copy-paste-friendly-code/ > 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35330
