On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> JS1 in 1995 needed *some* batteries included: Date, Math functions. I > chose java.util.Date (implementation, this was the one piece I had help on > from Ken Smith of Netscape, was a port from Java to C) and java.lang.Math. > > JSON is more recent but again we want some batteries included, especially > for the browser JS embedding. Downloading requires provisioning and hurts > page load performance (pay for what you use but it's still a big-enough > cost). JSON is based on Doug Crockford's json2.js which people were in fact > downloading. > And json2.js was a complex set of RegExps guarding an eval. These RegExps were too complicated for anyone, including Crock, to have confidence that the result was secure. This was a security emergency waiting to happen. > > You could argue JSON didn't need to be in the core language. We did it, > it's not worth revisiting. But the ES6 module system should help us avoid > yet more such global namespace-object additions. > > /be > > > > > Corey Richardson wrote: > >> They seem rather out-of-place in a language that includes no standard >> library. >> I would include RegExp in that list but there is literal syntax for that >> in >> the language. >> >> Are the reasons purely historical/for convenience of standardization in >> JavaScript? They seem like something the host environment should provide, >> not a native object. >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
