On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:40 PM, John J Barton <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John J Barton wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:49 PM, John J Barton wrote: >>> >>> > We don't know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out >>> different features. >>> >>> That's not how the committee has worked since 2008, and even before then >>> (pre-Harmony), with a split committee, we still had two groups working on >>> consensus by drafting proposals and prototyping them. >>> >>> The way we try to work is to propose before implementing, including >>> prototype features. Individual vendors don't deviate from proposals >>> unilaterally and silently. >>> >>> If old proposals were implemented, and then the proposals changed, we may >>> have some work to do adjusting implementations (certainly true of >>> SpiderMonkey, and we will do it). But we do not go off on our own, as >>> individual vendors, and try out features never proposed on the wiki. >>> >> >> You're making something out of nothing. >> >> >> Somehow I suspect the shoe would be on the other foot if other vendors did >> likewise. >> >> But I'm tired of arguing in favor of keeping consensus. If it's not >> important, let's all go off and run our own experiments and see what >> happens. Biggest company wins, best two out of three in case of a >> order-of-magnitude market cap tie :-P. That will be fun. >> >> >> If you have a beef with how Google works with the committee, then >> contact a Google rep on the committee and complain to them. >> >> >> I already have, but that's not the topic here: you just wrote "We don't >> know what the standard will be so we need some why to try out different >> features" (cited above) and I wrote back arguing with you, not with anyone >> else. >> >> >> But don't paint the Traceur project as some weird plot to derail your >> work. >> >> >> I never said anything like that ("weird plot" -- come on!). I don't know >> why Traceur was developed the way it was, and then abandoned (I have some >> theories, but really, who cares?). >> >> Maybe it's someone else's turn to maintain Traceur, and Google has done >> its fair share. The problem is no one else knows the code and Jake said he >> got no response when he asked (but maybe he asked in the wrong channel or >> something). It's hard for others to pick up where things left off. >> > > I have quite a lot of first hand experience in picking up where things left > off. No question it's hard, but you may get further by building on Traceur > rather than starting over. > > >> >> >> It's just like a thousand other open source projects, a risky labor of >> love, a gift to the community of engineers. >> >> >> There is a lot of abandon-ware in open source, but that's a very low bar >> to meet. >> >> >> Well we don't have a Mark and Tom for Traceur. We just have some great >> source code. If anyone here wants to try to match Traceur up to Ecma >> consensus, please step up. >> >> >> So you, another Googler, exhort anyone, or Jake, to "fix it" and "step up" >> (but thanks for the "please" the second time :-/). >> >> I think it's fair to ask why anyone would do that, instead of choosing to >> work on other projects that seem to have active maintainers and open source >> communities going back to their genesis. >> > > Juan asked about Traceur. Advocates for other projects can reply if they > like. > > >> >> Beyond this, I'm still picking a fight with your "We don't know what the >> standard will be so we need some why to try out different features" line, >> which you have not defended. But we can table that, or forget about it if >> you prefer. >> > > Well we don't know what the standard will be, that's just a fact. I happen > to think that one needs to gain experience with language features by trying > them out. I know you have a lot of experience so perhaps you don't need this > step. I totally don't understand why you want to prevent Juan or Jake from > trying out ideas related to JS. > > >> >> Something's wrong here. Jake cited specific concerns about Traceur and got >> a lecture to be grateful for it being open source, and to get to work fixing >> it. Is that really the best answer? >> > > I'm sorry if I came across as lecturing. I was taken aback by Jake's > puzzling comments. I was just trying to being things back to reality. > Traceur seems like a useful bit of code; it does not look like it will be > maintained by the original authors. I was trying to encourage Jake and Juan > to participate in taking it forward. > > +1 for encouraging participation, traceur may be good starting point. > >> /be >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
