On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Forrest L Norvell <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/30/14 8:25 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: >> >>> since I find that style more precise and idiomatic >>> >> >> It's not clear to me that the former is true (and in fact, making sure >> that an ES-style spec is not fundamentally buggy in the "doesn't have the >> desired behavior" sense is _much_ harder than doing it for a WebIDL spec, >> in my experience). >> >> It's also _much_ harder to read and understand in my experience, and the >> experience of many other people I've talked to. >> > > I am going through the process of implementing Domenic's spec in ES5 for > Node as a way of validating my understanding of the spec (in reality, the > only Nodeisms in my implementation is my use of CommonJS modules), so maybe > I can shed a little light on this. > > So far, this has been a very straightforward spec to implement. The spec > language is imperative and concrete, so it is easy both to turn into > JavaScript and to point to the correspondences between the implementation > code and the relevant line items in the spec. So far, it has also been easy > to use the code to illuminate inconsistencies or identify problems with the > spec, > This is excellent, please be sure to file any spec bugs of any nature here: http://bugs.ecmascript.org Feedback based on implementation experience is critical to ES6 success :) Rick > and using the nomenclature of ES-262 makes very clear from context how to > distinguish between the public interface of the API and its internal > properties and methods. > > I've been surprised (and pleased) by how easy it has been to implement the > spec thus far, and most of the issues I've raised with Domenic have been > down to either minor misunderstandings on my part or judgment calls without > objectively right or wrong answers. To me, this feels like the appropriate > sort of issues to be coming out of working with a draft specification. Much > of the credit for that goes to Domenic and his collaborators (and probably > also to my familiarity with other JavaScript streams implementations), but > I appreciate not having to spend a lot of time translating between WebIDL's > abstract hybrid of C++, Java and JavaScript type models and the code I'm > working on. > > As an implementor, I find this all a refreshing contrast to trying to wrap > my head around WebIDL, which, in my blunt opinion, does a poor job of > capturing any real operational model used on the web. I have nothing > against formal specification methods per se, but, at least for things that > are implementable in pure JavaScript (as Domenic's proposal is), I think > ECMASpeak is preferable to WebIDL. > > F > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
