On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Russell Leggett <[email protected]>wrote:
> > As much as every JavaScript advocate usually cringes at the comparison > of JavaScript to Java, it is a little funny that right now I think > they are in a little bit of the same situation. The JVM and JavaScript > are both becoming highly desirable targets of alternative programming > languages. I think this is awesome, and important, but we can't let > the language stagnate just because there is innovation in other > languages that target the platform. Java now looks like a dinosaur and > people have been predicting that while the JVM will live on, the > language will start to die. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to > JavaScript. > I don't think there is any evidence that Java's decline relates to any addition or lack of addition to the language. Java's decline simply reflects the decline of runtime it is particularly well suited for. Similarly JavaScript's future is more closely tied to the future of the browser than to changes in the language. Please note that I did not say that JavaScript should not change. The important work of this group contributes to the overall vitality of the platform and improves the work of many, many developers.. I am only pushing back on the evidence supporting change for change sake. > > On the other hand, I'd also hate to see ES4 part 2. > I am encouraged by the potential for class features to be dropped from ES.next. I wish we had more experimental implementation work tried by developers before specs. I wish we had more user-study information from the existing class-like libraries to inform the discussions. The feature is too complex to know the answers intuitively. jjb > > - Russ > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
