Here is a related Twitter discussion: https://twitter.com/domenic/status/523202298466418688
To highlight the main points: > Domenic Denicola claims that extending built-in prototypes is not web-compatible. Indeed, if we consider all possible corner-cases and ignore best practices (which is often the case for the Web), adding new prototype properties or global identifiers can break existing code. However, it is basic knowledge that 3rd-party code and future ECMAScript versions can and will extend the built-in prototypes, and host environments can inject new global identifiers. If developers do not keep this in mind, they are writing what I call "code waiting to be broken". Developers already have the means to write future-proof code. For instance, I believe Outlook's code could be made future-proof by simply using `.hasOwnProperty()` instead of the `in` operator. IMO, developers should be more mindful about future-proofness, and new developers should be educated in this vein. This must happen in order for ECMAScript to keep evolving without revolving around ugly/unnecessary syntax such as pragmas and core library imports. "Code waiting to be broken" should be of no concern to TC39. But in reality, many developers simply won't follow the best practices, and as Domenic said, browser vendors don't want to ship changes that break existing code. Looks like we have reached a stalemate, and I believe this is something that should be addressed before ES6 is officially publicized. O.T.: although I've been accompanying ES Discuss for a good while, this is my first post here and I'd like to thank all TC39 members and contributors for the awesome work so far. /FM On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is some more info. > > > http://windowssystemspecialist.blogspot.com/2014/10/fixing-blank-calendar-with-chrome-38.html > > (This blog post would have been useful when we tracked down what caused > OWA to fail.) > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Walden <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/17/2014 01:53 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: >> > [1] Microsoft Outlook Calendar web app (part of Exchange Outlook Web >> Access) >> >> Microsoft could ship a fix in a point release, right? They surely >> already provide security patches that admins must install anyway, if they >> want to keep their users (and their data) safe. If the fix is small, is >> there any reason why it couldn't be part of such a patch? >> >> Jeff >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > erik > > _______________________________________________ > 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
