Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 4/23/2012 6:41 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The point is that much of what is done on the web is not high
integrity computation. It is essential that high integrity be
possible, when it is required. But forcing all computation into the
high integrity category seems like as bad an idea as forcing all
computation to be low integrity. I really wonder how successful JS
would have been if it had started out as a high integrity language.
Yes, I think that's a good point.
No, that is not a good point. The strange ascendance of JS can best be
described as miraculous. It succeed despite its low integrity, not
because of it.
Our problem is not to figure out how to make this language popular. We
have somehow already managed that through amazing luck.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt=qt0440727
I think our problem now is to disarm the array of toeguns while
minimizing breakage as much as possible, and to avoid installing new
toeguns. I think a focus on high integrity gives us a useful discipline.
Of course we'll never know, but I've argued something I *do* know: I
made JS mutable by default (all objects, almost all properties safe
constructor.prototype and perhaps some DOM ones) in 1995 because I knew
developers would have to monkey-patch it right away. I was counting on
that non-miracle to help save it.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
