The nuance is that it is far more concise, making it more useful for
frequent immutable updates, and it brings consistency with array spread (it
was briefly considered to make a symbol for customizing object spread, but
it was ultimately rejected for reasons I can't remember). Also, the
optimizations would be much less speculative (you could perform them at the
baseline level for object spread with some effort, unlike with

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018, 07:26 Bob Myers <> wrote:

> Cool. I don't claim to fully understand this, but as I read your issue, it
> seems the optimization could/would apply to either spread properties OR
> `Object.assign` case. If that's true, then there's nothing specially
> optimizable about spread properties, in which case that particular point
> would NOT have been a reason to support its adoption. Or is there some
> nuance I'm missing?
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Isiah Meadows <>
> wrote:
>> BTW, regarding engine optimizability of those, I've filed a couple V8
>> bugs:
>> - (object spread
>> + `Object.assign`)
>> - (array spread +
>> `Array.prototype.concat`)
>> There are things engines *could* do that they *aren't currently
>> doing*. Part of why I proposed V8 take a look at this is because it
>> has one of the more flexible IC systems out of all the engines (they
>> can lower `` to a simple loop for dense arrays even
>> though a simple `delete array[index]` within the loop breaks the
>> assumption - this is *exceptionally* difficult to implement with the
>> ability to deoptimize).
>> -----
es-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to