Another important characteristic we look for in proposals is orthogonality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_science>
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Ben Newman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Taking a step back from the details of this proposal, I have some thoughts > about why it seems to be struggling to find support. > > In no particular order, I would say this proposal > relies on microbenchmarks, which can be misleading > <https://tomdale.net/2017/07/adventures-in-microbenchmarking/> > disregards Amdahl's Law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law>, by > pretending that real-world JS CPU usage is commonly/ever dominated by min/max > computations > replaces two O(n) loops with another O(n) loop that does slightly more work > on each iteration, resulting in no complexity improvement, and a fairly > modest (< 2x) constant factor improvement > doesn't seem to provide usability/learnability improvements for any > particular group of JS developers (for example, novice programmers) > doesn't seem to prevent any common bugs in JS code > As a member of TC39, I regret that we have not provided a clearer set of > criteria for what it takes to get a new function into the standard library. > While I can't speak for the committee as a whole, my suspicion is that this > proposal is unlikely to meet that standard. It's a fine idea, but so are many > other functions that you can implement in a normal (non-standard) library. > > I would also challenge the committee to think about (or link to!) any > concrete written criteria that someone with an idea for a proposal could use > to assess its chances of acceptance. Imagine how much time we could save! > > Ben
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
