Yes please edit it, you don't have to repost. BTW the only thing I can agree with is the `Object.is()` which to me seems like the only problem it solves is `Object.is(NaN, NaN)` now returns true
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > https://i.imgflip.com/mtot6.jpg > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:55 PM KOLANICH <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello all. I have opened the page >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/New_in_JavaScript/ECMAScript_6_support_in_Mozilla >> and was horrified. What happened with JS? Why do we need all this methods? >> Why a lot of functionality is now doubled, and a lot of new badly designed >> API and language features was introduced? I understand the word >> "compatibility", but I think that no compatibility worth enough to be >> preserved sacrificing the language design making it self-contradictary. >> For example, Object.is compares identity. Operator === also compares >> identity but in a bit differrent way. Why not just make == check equality >> only between compatible types, === check identity (that the object is the >> same) and throw out Object.is. Operator [] casts its argument to string ... >> but not when used with Symbol (why not just allow the key to be any object >> and match using ===). New iterator API relyes on Symbol.iterator. Why do we >> need it? Why not just use strings and prototypes? fromCodePoint doubles >> fromCharCode, but differs a bit. Why didn't you repurpose fromCharCode, >> just allowing it to take a string arguments describing codepages? >> Iterability and enumerability are distinct, but iterability is just >> enumerability with numeric key (yeah, I know that it is possible to create >> endless or random iterator, but in fact this means that you just don't need >> to use the key provided). Why there is iterability, but not enumerability >> with properties of iterability and enumerability united? Why we need >> enumerability to make it work with for ... in and iterability to make it >> work with for ... of? Why can't we use methods definitions to define >> methods as a function declaration? Why JS is so badly designed? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
