Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
As said above, we already have the primitive case, and you are
just
adding yet another kind of beast. I don't think that would be
improving anything. On the contrary.
This is an argument from minimization of primitive concepts or
kinds, but I argue the better way on the web (given backward
compatibility) is not to mimimize at such a reductive level. Users
mostly ignore the boolean, number, and string wrappers, which are
unobservable in strict mode.
Nit: They are not unobservable. Rather, strict code itself never
implicitly wraps.
Thanks, I meant that, but my point is users really don't run into
boolean/Boolean, number/Number, and string/String complexity in the
main. Yes, one must use String.prototype (not string.prototype, there's
no 'string' of course), but such minor irregularities in languages are a
lesser issue.
However, for example,
({}).valueOf.call(3) // 3 wrapper
Right.
Users do not want more wrappers, e.g., Uint64 for uint64. No
use-case is served by such beasts.
You might argue that "total cognitive load" is lower, but I reply
that since wrappers are almost completely unobservable and not
used explicitly, the load of having two types, symbol/Symbol,
bignum/Bignum, etc., is strictly higher.
I'm hoping you agree here!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
