On Dec 4, 3:25 pm, "Karl Guertin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't like the idea of my code breaking in the future ... > nor do I like the idea of my choices causing someone else's code > to break.
This won't happen. There won't be new stuff added to JavaScript until version 2, which will also include features like modules and namespacing to allow code to run on its own island. For example, a script will be able to use a copy of the "intrinsic" namespace (i.e., without whatever extensions have been applied by another script) if it wants. Any future standardizing of JS will take into account the difficulty of developing in a heterogeneous environment. There are two sorts of dangers that Prototype presents: the *pragmatic* sort (what if I have old scripts that do for..in on arrays, which Prototype breaks) and the *theoretical* sort (the footprint on the global namespace is not minimized, what if another script redefines String.prototype.capitalize incompatibly, etc.). I acknowledge that the pragmatic dangers are to be guarded from, but I simply am not terrified by the theoretical dangers. Some people are, and that's fine. That's why there's Dojo, MochiKit, and YUI. But so far I've encountered *only one* pragmatic danger of using Prototype, and it's a by-product of the incorrect code of third parties. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
