>> +1. Where the spec is already almost pseudo-code, its readability would >> improve if it was, in fact, pseudo-code. But would an extra interpreter be >> needed or couldn’t one just implement the ES-262 constructs (execution >> contexts etc.) in an existing language (Python, Rust, Scheme, Smalltalk, >> etc.)? > Why choosing a completely different language? Why not ECMAScript 5.1?
Right, I had forgotten about ECMAScript itself. > It will be one less language to learn as people who read the ES6 spec are > very likely to be familiar with ES5.1. I personnally wouldn't feel > comfortable reading a spec in any of the 4 languages you cited. > Or maybe define the couple of things that can't be fully implemented in ES5.1 > (proxies, private names) and use ES5.1 + these construct to define ES6. I don’t think you need these constructs at the meta-level to implement them at the object level. However, I would in general be in favor of ES6, because it would help with implementing types (at the very least, subtyping would be easier via <| ). -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
