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 email@example.com https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss