John Barton wrote: > The biggest problem with this test is that the Alexa set selects for sites > with experienced developers writing for production sites. The pattern you are > trying to detect is not used in these circumstances.
I agree that this dataset is not representative of all JS code. Although, to provide some context, the same set contains nearly 2000 sites that declare functions in blocks (~60 of those declare those functions in loops). John Barton wrote: > As you say "all browsers seem to allow it". Browsers made the mistake and we > should not go back now and blame developers on smaller sites because they use > this kind of code. Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Given the number of stackoverflow posts I've seen that come down to browsers > not being exactly compatible on their handling of this code, its prevalence > is too high to allow us to remove the behavior in simple cases. :( Chakra, and other implementations I imagine, will remove features that are non-standard and are unused. Getting usage data is the hard part, so anything concrete anyone can share would be helpful. I am in favor of removing this if we can convince ourselves it won't break people, but I agree that without good data the conservative approach is better. Brendan Eich wrote: > If no one else looks, I will try to find the WebKit.org bug trail. I tried searching, and failed. Let me know if you have better luck! _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
