On Nov 10, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Nov 10, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> I'm using "with" here only as an example, to try to understand the >> nature of the compatibility constraints on the ES4 process. > > Compatibility imposes footprint costs, but it also creates a > migration tax proportional to usage, roughly. We're trying not to > blow either footprint budget or migration budget. These are fuzzy, > hard to quantify and reason about; nice judgment is required.
I meant to add: we're on a slippery slope once opt-in versioning means removing stuff if the trade against adding compensating/better stuff seems to win. Slide a little way down, fix or remove with and bad-eval (keep good-eval, TBD ;-). Slide further, you are starting to talk "two languages" and that has brainprint and creeping compatibility/shared-code hazards we don't like. But let's target the bad boys first: with, bad-eval. We've tried to reform both. Recidivism is a risk if we misjudge. ;-) /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
