On May 10, 2012, at May 10, 20128:55 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > 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 conflict or out of date.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?
Let me clarify. People obviously have solutions for this in pure js. What isn't happening is any sort of movement around a common API or implementation while TC-39 is considering it. I'm not trying to say that TC-39 should stop it's work on this, or any other, API. I'm just trying to make it clear that there would be a positive effect in the community if you were to publicly state work you are no longer undertaking or considering for the next version. -Mikeal _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
