On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Jeremy Ashkenas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Could you elaborate on this point? >> All object-lockdown I can think (non-configurability, non-writability, >> non-enumerability, private names, const variables, const classes) of is >> optional. Why are you against them? ... > The freedom of having every object and every property be configurable, > settable, introspectable, readable and writable, at least at the language > level, is worth the trade off. If we add const, private, and other lock-down > syntax, or make class properties private by default (shudder), I guarantee > you that many potential innovative libraries that otherwise might spring up > will never even be conceived, and frustrating situations that could have > otherwise been solved by a quick patch will instead require convoluted > work-arounds.
Another maybe stronger argument is simplicity: these myriad new minor features create a blizzard of chaff in the way of developers. One excellent example is Object.create(). Here was a terrific opportunity to simplify the language based on years of experience and analysis. But instead of an object as a second argument, we got a descriptor requiring many details for each property. Of course these details are important for the use-cases that need them. Unfortunately everyone else has to carry the baggage. jjb _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
