Dmitrii, Quick aside: the rude manner in which you are communicating is interfering with your goal of convincing anyone. Perhaps if you tried not being so rude, people here would be more willing to listen to what you're saying.
- James On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:09 AM Dmitrii Dimandt <dmit...@dmitriid.com> wrote: > Let’s continue with the trend of light reading. Let’s see the multitude of > things that are in JS, and no one bats an eye: > > — start quote — > > Note that implements, let, private, public, interface, package, protected > , static, and yield are disallowed in strict mode only. > > You may have noticed I included eval and arguments in the list. These are > not strictly reserved words, but they sure act like them > <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-12.2.1> — they’re > disallowed in strict mode too. > > Also, the (unlisted) NaN, Infinity, and undefined properties of the > global object are immutable or read-only properties in ES5. So even though var > NaN = 42; in the global scope wouldn’t throw an error, it wouldn’t > actually do anything. To avoid confusion, I’d suggest avoiding the use of > these identifiers altogether, even though they’re not strictly reserved > words. > > — end quote — > > Oh, hello. What do we have here? Non-reserved words like they are > reserved, and JS treating them in a special way. > > So. The *only* reason *not* to introduce a proper global introspection API > is? > > On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 10:03 dmit...@dmitriid.com <dmit...@dmitriid.com> > wrote: > >> I’d recommend you assume your opponent has done some light reading. And >> I’d suggest you yourself read the links you post (that is, practice what >> you preach). >> >> Multiple reserved keywords have been both added to the language and >> removed from the language. Because *the language evolves*. >> >> However, you (and TC39 in general) keep insisting that short-sightedness >> and ad-hoc solutions is the only way forward for JavaScript. >> >> You don’t like System, you think it cannot be used? Oh, introduce an >> `introspect` keyword. Introduce a `system` keyword. Heck, nothing stopped >> you from introducing a language-level built-in in the form of Symbol, >> what’s stopping you now? >> >> >> >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:55 Jordan Harband <Jordan Harband >> <jordan+harband+%3cljh...@gmail.com%3E>> wrote: >> >>> Because it's been reserved syntax since JavaScript's inception, and >>> System hasn't. >>> >>> I'd recommend some light reading before attempting to continue arguing: >>> https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/reserved-keywords >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <dmit...@dmitriid.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> But you can’t `var x = import`, for example. I guess you can’t `var >>>> import = {}` either. >>>> >>>> Hmmm… I wonder why… >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:50 Jordan Harband <Jordan Harband >>>> <jordan+harband+%3cljh...@gmail.com%3E>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It can't be made syntax, because `var System = {};` is valid code, and >>>>> we can't break the web. (seriously) >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Dmitrii Dimandt <dmit...@dmitriid.com >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Make “System” syntax, and there you go. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead we have multiple ad-hoc random additions to random keywords >>>>>> just because someone needs something and since there are rarely any >>>>>> long-term design decisions anymore, we’re stuck with new.target, >>>>>> function.sent, import.meta (add your own) >>>>>> >>>>>> Seriously. How is new.target is “syntax that has context >>>>>> information”, but System.whatever cannot be provided with context >>>>>> information because it’s API? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 at 09:26 Jordan Harband <Jordan Harband >>>>>> <jordan+harband+%3cljh...@gmail.com%3E>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> > There’s nothing stopping you from providing context to >>>>>>> System.load. Or Loader.import, or… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those are APIs. It is, in fact, impossible to provide context with >>>>>>> API, since it's just normal functions - it must be with syntax. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, please don't use sexual language, especially in a >>>>>>> derogatory manner - that's against TC39's code of conduct, and I'm quite >>>>>>> sure it won't be tolerated on this list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Criticism that's purely insult, and doesn't actually explain the >>>>>>> cons of something, is also not productive or useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Gil Tayar <g...@tayar.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Myself, and tens of programmers I know, use ES6 modules (and their >>>>>>>> precursors, CommonJS modules) for years now and can't even believe >>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>> was a time when they didn't exist, given that they have totally >>>>>>>> transformed >>>>>>>> (in a good way) the way we work. And that is also the vibe I am getting >>>>>>>> from the community (twitter, blog posts, meetups, etc). So when you say >>>>>>>> that modules are "redundant and unnecessary on the server-side. >>>>>>>> and [...]continue to fail to solve an relevant pain-point for everyday >>>>>>>> programmers on the frontend-side now", I believe you are not talking >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> myself or about the community I surround myself with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Gil Tayar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > I’m curious what the concerns were. You mentioned disliking the >>>>>>>>> syntax, but I’m guessing there’s more to it than that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the concern is that es modules are starting to look like a >>>>>>>>> solution in search of a problem. its redundant and unnecessary on the >>>>>>>>> server-side. and it continues to fail to solve an relevant >>>>>>>>> pain-point for >>>>>>>>> everyday programmers on the frontend-side now, or in the foreseeable >>>>>>>>> future, while creating new ones. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > I’ve been experimenting with ES Modules over HTTP 2 for a few >>>>>>>>> months. I used rollup to create my dep graph without actually >>>>>>>>> bundling, >>>>>>>>> then served requested modules as entry points with a server push for >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> deps. I imagine that it won’t be long brolefore generic tooling for >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> sort of approach emerges (my own solution is pretty hacky, just >>>>>>>>> wanted to >>>>>>>>> see how it might work). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for most projects, dep-graph and tree-shaking have marginal >>>>>>>>> benefits in frontend programming, given their complexity. for all >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> extra work and boilerplate, the result is typically not anymore >>>>>>>>> smaller, >>>>>>>>> more efficient, or more maintainable than a pre-es6 rollup file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
