T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 15 June 2012 22:22, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if
"wouldn't hurt" is the answer for syntax proposals.
Who said it was?
You summarized Herby to that effect:
"Herby's ("wouldn't hurt")[2].
...
[2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023510.html
"
New syntax does hurt. It hurts by requiring a transpiler or full
compiler to target old browsers. It hurts if it's botched, because
you cannot polyfill to patch it. It costs inordinately compared to
deferring and seeing if enough use-cases arise.
I'm sorry: "botched"?! What exactly is "botched" about this?
You are misreading my generic words. I'm not talking about a proposal of
yours, or of mine.
In fact, I don't think I was pushing any particular syntax. I think I
was clear about asking _whether_ people saw value in the semantics of
it, not the syntax. It's fine if people don't see value; is there a
problem with asking the question?
I was describing the hazards of adding syntax that "wouldn't hurt".
Syntax should be added only when it clearly helps:
* It brings new semantics not expressible in the language (let, const,
modules, generators).
* It is an affordance without new semantics for a common pattern that's
verbose and error-prone when open-coded.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
