Re: shallow testing
Yes you've said that, but this is exactly what `@supports` is in CSS. There was
no way to do shallow testing so they added a way to do it.
Re: Bootstrapping
This is exactly my point, you're already using multiple builds and letting a
transpiler handle it for you. Why would you opt for a worse solution than
letting transpilers handle even more than you?
Here's my ideal situation:
For users who want targeted builds:
1. The transpiler handles building multiple files for various targeted
environments.
- Using a known set of feature support (similar to caniuse).
2. Server uses header information to send down the appropriate built file
- Using the same known set of feature support.
For users who want a single build:
1. The transpiler builds a single file which supports every targeted environment
2. Server sends the same file for everyone.
Neither of these are perfect solutions, but they are a lot better than needing
to make multiple requests just to determine what version of the site to serve.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Kyle Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not that it's imperfect. It's that it's useless in the real world.
> It's clear it's useless to you. It's not clear that it's useless to everyone.
> In fact, I for one definitely find it useful. No sense in continuing to argue
> over subjective opinion.
>> We can already do shallow testing of APIs. Reflect.support doesn't help
>> there, and in some ways (that I've outlined before) it is a regression.
>>
>> ```
>> if (!Array.prototype.includes) { ... }
>> if (!Reflect.supports("Array.prototype.includes")) { ... }
>> ```
> As I've repeatedly said, this proposed feature is not for those sorts of
> tests. It's for all the syntax tests that require `try..catch` + `Function` /
> `eval`. Please (re)read the rest of the thread.
>> You also wouldn't do testing of syntax support at runtime
> I already do. I fully intend to keep doing so.
>> as you would effectively be duplicating the code.
> Nope, not duplicating code. Maintaining code in original ES6+ authored form
> as well as transpiled form. They're both files that can be loaded by a
> browser. So my intent is to decide at runtime which one is appropriate, and
> only load one or the other.
>> ...send down a file that tests for support and then sends it back to the
>> server
> Yep, absolutely. Bootstrapping.
>> and then build the appropriate assets for that browser?
> Of course not. It picks one of two already existing files.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
