> But sure, perhaps a "guidelines for use in production" section would be useful. [...] having them there makes it easier for people to point out to them the dangers (or at least, considerations) of what they're doing, backed by a link to the document [...]
In my own experience, that might have been a useful thing to have a few times. A few years back I didn’t have the proper context for making decisions about what the consequences of using stage 0-2 features might be over time. I came to regret that. Later I had a better understanding of this and had come to feel pretty strongly that it was unwise to use anything less than stage 3 for projects that are expected to have a long future. However it’s not always easy to convince people of this, especially if they themselves can point to a lot of stuff that actually advises using pre-stage 3 proposed features and non-standard extensions. Being able to point to a formal statement about what the stages mean not just from the point of view of TC39’s internal process, but also what they imply for a consumer standpoint — chance of ultimate inclusion, overall stability — would be helpful. Would it actually lead to more careful decision making? I’m not sure, but consider the mental health benefits: having linked to such an official doc during a discussion of these concerns would mark a point after which one might say to oneself: "okay... well, one _did try_". Then, rather than continue such a discussion endlessly, one may instead grant oneself a few moments to stare out a window wistfully, accept fate, sigh, and think about ponies.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
