On Jul 19, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:

> Agreed - my note was just a "most value to the most users the soonest" 
> argument.  Syntax is clearly important, and many of the proposals can only 
> reasonably be offered as syntax.  Some of the proposals that can be partly 
> delivered as libraries still benefit significantly from syntax as well.

Great to hear.


>  But the adoption timelines for the new library pieces and the new syntax 
> pieces will be quite different, not just because of downrev browsers, but 
> also because of breaking change burden, authoring convenience, maintenance of 
> old script, etc.

Not to quibble, but the problem you are identifying is the polyfill vs. 
compiler one: polyfills for libraries are easier (even if fake or weak, 
semantically), polyfills for syntax are transpilers or full-strength compilers. 
Right?

I'm hoping your point is not that some implementors will prototype library code 
faster than new syntax. Library extensions may be easier (proxies are a 
possible counter-example) but implementors should be prototyping both new 
syntax+semantics and new library code or built-in modules (which will require 
the module system).

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to