I've been following this thread since it started. Maybe it's in here somewhere and I missed it throughout these many comments. But...
It has already been mentioned that there is likely no performance degradation when adding new features. If performance is an issue because a developer is using legacy/outdated methods in their code, the developer should just update their methods to use the newer better ones in the newer API that was introduced. Alternatively, JS has done a good job of adding new features that are optional and that do not affect outdated ones, so there is nothing lost here. If you don't want to use a new feature, don't use it... ever (if necessary). So can someone give me at least a couple of hard use cases where introducing a new JS feature requires the removal of another? And not removing the feature, would cause significant harm to the future of the language? I don't mean just some anecdotal or insignificant case like having to choose a different reserved word because it was already used before (i.e. will we run out of words? :) ) AFAICT, the committee is working extremely hard to introduce some pretty new and exciting things to JS every day <https://github.com/tc39/proposals>. And I don't think this progress would be improved that much by removal old JS features. So I'm seriously having trouble understanding the assumption that we need to remove JS features just to move the language forward. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 4:30 AM Bruno Jouhier <[email protected]> wrote: > > 3. At a fixed date (e.g. 12 Months after X) all browsers must show a > > warning to the user (e.g. red address bar, etc.), when the website he > > visits uses a feature from the deprecation list: "The website you are > > visiting uses features, which will be removed in the future. Please ask > > the website owner to update his website." - All browser vendors are > > obliged to start this warning beginning with that date - so the browser > > has to check for the date. > > My step mother calls me: Bruno, there is a strange message on my screen. > Can you help! I reassure here. > > > 4. At a fixed date (e.g. 24 Months after X) all browsers must stop > > supporting the feature, which means that they just refuse to show that > > broken website and instead show a message to the user, that the website > > cannot be shown anymore, because its features are not supported anymore. > > My step mother calls again: my tablet is broken, can you fix it? > > The web site that my step mother was visiting was built by the > non-profit accountant's nephew eight years ago. He is climbing a mountain. > > We see things with our technologist eyes. Many (most?) web users don't > understand whether something is wrong with the browser or with the server, > or with the network (and they don't care). For them it is just "broken". > > We've broken the web. My step mother is happy with her apps. > _______________________________________________ > 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
