On 12/4/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm arguing that a future language change could conflict with an > enhancement in Prototype.
Future changes that modify public APIs in JavaScript will break any other code as well as Prototype's. You're talking about 6-7 years from now - imagine what browsers will look like then? You will have Firefox 6, Opera 12, Safari 4, IE 7.1 and a ton of new stuff that I'm not even trying to imagine. This is not Java where you deploy in a known environment - you're deploying your script into the unknown and you cannot have that kind of security. You have to have unobtrusive code (if it fails, the application still works) that is maintained over time. I don't think this scenario is very likely, but it does illustrate why > I oppose prototype hacking on shared objects (Object, Date, Array, > String, RegEx, etc). I don't approve the usage of the term "hacking" when using a natural feature of the language. If we could "subclass" Array, Object, Date and others things would be different - unfortunately subclassing built-in types is a pain (Dean Edwards' blog). Therefore we're stuck with built-in types - at least we can enrich their APIs. Also I agree with Andrew Dupont. -- Mislav --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
