On May 9, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > ... > I think a better strategy is for TC-39 to state definitively what is *not* > currently working on or is of a very low priority. This would allow the > community of people using JavaScript to tackle those problems more directly > rather than just waiting. At some point in the future TC-39 can adopt or > ratify behavior that has proved itself in the community. I know this process > is eluded to often but I don't think you understand how much momentum gets > sucked out of the community when they are under the impression that new > behavior will be handed down from TC-39 and that their work may fall in > conflict or out of date. > > The recent discussion about Object.isObject is a great example. If this isn't > happening please state so definitely so that we can rally around existing > work (underscore) or build something new. >
I actually don't see why, for functionality like this, you care so much about what TC39 is doing. If you need something right now that is implementable using the current language just build it. Either in your individual apps or in libraries that you promote. If the functionality doesn't require new language syntax or semantics, you don't need us. For such functionality, the most power input into the TC39 process is wide adoption across a many applications and libraries. After proving that level of utility, a feature is ripe for standardization in order to assume universal available and common semantics. WRT Object.isObject, you've seen the debate. It's in the current ES6 draft. It may or may not stay there. It could die at the next meeting or anytime before final publication, hopefully in Dec. 2013. The same applies to any feature. Even if you could get a irrevocable decision today (and you can't) what meaningful difference does it make to you as a developer shipping software in 2012? Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
