On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
If the ES4 and ES3.1 folks can agree on their respective meanings of
the subset named "strict", such that
* ES3.1 < ES4
* ES3.1 strict < ES3.1
* ES4 strict < ES4
* ES3.1 strict < ES4 strict
then we'd only need the two subset names needed for these
distinctions. Even then, making the syntax change from
"use strict";
to
"use subset strict";
still seems like a good idea to me.
I'm not in favor of uniformity over usability, especially if for
whatever reason we do not add subsets to future standards. 'use
strict' is short and sweet, familiar from Perl and other languages,
and IMHO much better than the pedantic (sorry, but it fits :-P) 'use
subset strict'.
If we do standardize more subsets, we can cross the longer bridge then.
This is a small point, but it highlights tension between usability
("read" as well as "write", I claim) and "completeness" (for want of
a better word). Anyway the ES4 pragma syntax prefers one-word terms,
although there have been ad-hoc two-word forms.
At the last F2F, Lars and Brendan
raised the possibility that they might like to define stricter modes
in successors of ES4. The notion of named subsets would seem to
accommodate that. Brendan & Lars, in the absence of named subsets, how
would you introduce such stricter modes in that future? What would you
propose?
Mainly what I recall we talked about at that meeting was simply the
idea that (ESn+1 strict could be < ESn strict) -- that one could make
strict mode stricter over time. Adding 'use stricter' was not a
serious proposal, IIRC.
I recall also we did not want strict mode to be part of the MIME-
typed version parameter, or the version to be selectable by a pragma.
So the only issue was upgrading from ESn to ESn+1 and facing a
stricter strict mode. Standard mode would be highly backward
compatible, with unpredictable and slow obsolescence leading to some
amount of deadwood shedding over time -- maybe.
Of the above desired subset relationships, the problematic one is the
last bullet above.
To wit:
* ES3.1 strict < ES4 strict
Agreed.
The outstanding disagreements are variable arity
strict functions and "with". Hopefully we can resolve these in Oslo.
In the meantime, to avoid stepping on each other's toes, we've renamed
"ES3.1 strict" to "cautious". That's all that's going on. I'm
surprised there's such a fuss.
Probably you are right, and there's too much fuss. On the other hand,
we now have a straw "cautious" mode to argue about. It would be
better to get agreement on strict before expending the effort and
seeming to up the "subset violation" ante (not entirely a matter of
perception; every documented and jargonized change tends to take on a
life of its own, and fight for survival).
That's my point -- profiled standards may pretend that
implementations can pick and choose among profiles to support, but on
the web's winner-take-all network effects force every implementation
to agree on the full standard.
Aren't you, Crock, and the rest of us vigorously agreeing?
I am pretty sure we agree on a lot -- more than you might think ;-).
But let's be clear on what I am arguing against: multiple subsets
taking precious standards-making bandwidth, adding to the complexity
(even temporarily) of the work within ES3.1 and ES4, and of course
between them.
Yes, subsets are useful -- so useful there are a great many out
there. No, we should not try to standardize them all, or invent
overlong syntax with which to select them, if we are only talking
about strict mode.
Users choosing subsets from full
implementations do not simplify the implementation space,
Agreed. That's not the point.
But that's my point, one of them: the specs are in large part for the
benefit of implementors, to make interoperation a more likely
outcome. Since web browser implementations have to handle the whole
language (and then some: quirks and deprecated features may remain
for a long while), the spec should not overreach for subsets at the
expense of clarity, compatibility, and completeness.
Complexity due to unnecessary subset additions, or mooting, or future-
proofing, is therefore not welcome, all else equal -- IMHO.
and too
many subsets make a mess of the spec and its implementation.
Agreed. Let's continue to try to reconcile "strict" and "cautious".
And let's avoid adding any more choices to the menu in the ES3.1/ES4
timeframe.
I agree completely -- good to read this.
What users -- as opposed to es3.x-discuss participants who may have
different and seemingly contradictory goals -- have asked for these
subsets?
To my ears, I've been quite amazed at how convergent our thinking has
been on these matters. What disagreements and contradictions do you
see among the es3.x-discuss participants?
I was quoting Allen there. He wrote (two messages up on this thread):
"This is an interesting exercise because I'm trying to find a path
that is tolerable for a number of different individuals who seem to
have different and sometimes seemingly contradictory goals: ...." I
didn't think he was writing only about ES4 participants. Among ES3
participants, is there strong agreement on disabling automatic
semicolon insertion in 3.1's strict mode?
This is a recipe for testing costs driving everyone away from all but
one mode, probably the one that's web-compatible.
Anyone interested in software quality is horrified by the current
state of JavaScript, and should welcome the constraints enforced by a
strict or cautious subset.
I hope we can standardize a strict mode that increases software
quality. That's why I'm concerned, along with Lars, about strict mode
ruling out syntax (such as automatic semicolon insertion) that much
JS on the web relies on without noticeable quality problems. We want
a strict mode that will be both useful and usable at low incremental
('use strict' per block or script) cost.
BTW, we've had arguments in the past with Ajax library authors, who
write high quality code, about things like Firefox 1's "deprecated
with" warnings. Not everyone agrees with your idea of what is
horrible, and observed software quality problems do not correlate so
clearly to all those 3.1-unstrict bêtes noires.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
