2013/1/20 Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> > I don't have a problem at all with making the proxy story more > complicated. Proxys are an expert feature designed for some specific use > cases. they are probably an attractive nuisance. I would advise most JS > programmer that if they are going down the road of using a Proxy, they are > probably making a mistake. In that light, placing the extra complexity > within the Proxy story seems just fine. >
While in the specific case of proxies & private symbols, I think it is fine if proxies take an extra complexity hit, I'd like to push back a little here regarding the more general point. People often complain that proxies are complicated. Well here's the deal: proxies are only as complicated as the ES object model requires them to be. The more features we add to the ES object model, the more complexity we face in proxies. It's awkward to blame proxies for that extra complexity. Proxies are just a (power-)tool that aim to let the ES programmer emulate all aspects of ES objects in Javascript itself. If Javascript objects become more complex, they obviously also become more complex to emulate. It also gives a false sense of simplicity to think that pushing off extra complexity into proxies actually sweeps all the complexity under the rug for the non-expert programmers. Extra complexity in proxies also implies extra complexity for any other kind of exotic/host object. Point-in-case: how will host objects interact with private symbols? It isn't entirely obvious. Does a WindowProxy forward them, or does each WindowProxy have its own set? These issues reappear outside of Proxies proper. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
