On 27 October 2011 13:35, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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? > 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.
To spec a beast like ES, you want something with a considerably simpler and cleaner semantics than ES. Otherwise, all you end up with is a circular definition. Ideally, a good executable spec would become the normative spec at some point, so this is not just a philosophical point. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
