Hi L2L, this message is uninformed that I must ask you to move to another forum, until you learn a lot more about js and web programming. This is not the place. On Sep 10, 2014 6:47 AM, "L2L 2L" <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> .... Yeah I guess I'm pretty late for that huh... No this is great, the > more feature, the better. A lot of these feature would cause certain > application not to be needed... In other words, use more of the language > and less libraries.... Why you at it, how about reviving E4X? That way, we > can lose the DOM api. After all, if ES was made for the web, than there > should be method to access the DOM. It could be an object, like how the E4X > was, but better. > > On another note, this is now becoming the mini-type > application/JavaScript, than text/JavaScript. > > But consider the E4X though. > > E-S4L > N-S4L > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Sebastian Zartner" < > sebastianzart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see why you're complaining. If you don't like the features in ES6, > then just don't use them. The features of ES5 are still available. > If you want to have more strict code, then add a "use strict"; statement > to your code. > And if you're against adding more features to the core language, then you > should have complained several years ago at the planning of ES6. > > Sebastian > > On 10 September 2014 08:12, L2L 2L <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> This.... These feature--most of them-- would be something I see in the >> browser api... This is truly looking like w3c working group... >> >> ... But I don't see any chance of my words changing the direction of the >> spec.... Especially when you consider the original designer of the language >> steering this course... >> >> So in term, if you can't beat them, change them, might as well aid them >> --in what I feel to be In truth, the destruction of the original syntax, >> by the original creature of the language... Kinda wish they had a flag for >> these new syntax to be set... At least than, those who are toward the >> originally syntax style, would feel some sort of preservation for it-- >> In their quest to farther add on to ES as a --application-- language. >> >> --as duo to a private email by /be. This to me is not trolling, I'm >> responding to this person who respond two times to my post... So in terms, >> I should not have to worry about being banned from the mailing list cause >> of this message. >> >> E-S4L >> N-S4L >> >> On Sep 10, 2014, at 1:17 AM, "Axel Rauschmayer" <a...@rauschma.de> wrote: >> >> Now is second half of 2014, and lots of issues are not closed yet, from >> what I see. >> >> >> The spec already looks pretty complete to me and Traceur and TypeScript >> do a pretty good job of letting you use ES6 today. >> >> As previously announced here, the current schedule is to be finished by >> the end of the year, to start the publication process in March 2014 and to >> have a standard by June 2014. >> >> I got delusioned as well. >> >> Isn't the model of big new editions of spec over; in the times we live >> now, with two-week frequent releases? I think ES6 will never see the light >> when taken from this approach. That's why, shouldn't the release policy be >> changed so that: >> >> >> It has already changed, but not for ES6. ECMAScript 7 and later will have >> fixed release dates. Only features that are ready at a given date will be >> included. >> Background: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262 >> >> -- >> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer >> a...@rauschma.de >> rauschma.de >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
