on tc39 criterias, this applies more to language-spec than library changes, but i think another criteria that can showstop stage 2-3 proposals is finding out whether a new syntax creates subtle engine de-optimizations that breaks the web.
around mid-2016, i recall sites like github.com and npmjs.com using readme.md as their landing-page would frequently freeze and crash in chrome. each time, i basically could not use chrome to visit these sites for a week or so until chrome auto-updated. this issue may or may not be related to javascript, but it hardened my conservative-perspective on proposals that can negatively impact the web. > On Oct 3, 2017, at 1:38 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 > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:12 PM Xavier Stouder <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > JDecker: Just added your solution on the benchmark, it beats every > others solution and it's a elegant solution. > > Kai Zhu: We can't see the screenshot. But please take in consideration > that it's been a long time that ECMAScript isn't only used in webapp, > and that some of applications using it can eat more than a million > numbers. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > <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
