Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
Le 11/02/2013 00:53, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit : We have transpilers for everything else, we need few better things today and FirefoxOS knows it, as example ... I'd love to see discussions about all Mozilla proposals for FirefoxOS and not always some tedious syntax for classes discussion, you know what I mean. I actually don't know what you mean :-s Unless I'm mistaken, extensions for Firefox OS are more hardware related APIs (vibration, radio, battery, connectivity, alarm, proximity...) than anything else. There are a couple of exceptions like WebActivities, but I don't think es-discuss is the right place to talk about any of that. Other groups at the W3C talk about FirefoxOS addition like public-device-apis and public-sysapps. My understanding is that this mailing-list is about discussions on evolving the language, so that'll be tedious syntax discussions (it's tedious largely because of legacy reasons, not because people love talking about syntax I think) and new low-level construct (WeakMap, proxies, symbols...). Which FirefoxOS would you want to talk about? David ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
Le 11/02/2013 00:53, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit : involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide /already decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools/ nobody ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen) hmm... I had skipped that part initially. There are some accusations here and, as a JS dev, non-TC39 members, I'd like to say that I disagree strongly. Here are a handful of public things related to TC39: 1) es-discuss 2) meeting notes with extra care and formatting since recently https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes 3) http://wiki.ecmascript.org where drafts and accepted ideas are documented 4) bugs.ecmascript.org 5) spec drafts [1] are released on a monthly-basis I recently questioned a feature [2], based on this public material. Public discussion happened. I'm balanced on the de-facto conclusion, but the least we can agree on is that a public discussion happened. I'm willing to agree on a lot of things like: * the different communication channels create confusion * the wiki isn't always up-to-date (Rick did some good cleaning job recently, though) * some discussions on es-discuss aren't documented in a condensed format and re-happen in some cases * maybe on occasions Allen is too quick in adding things to the spec drafts (WeakMap.prototype.clear case), etc. I personally put all these issues on the fact that TC39 is a group of human beings. They make mistake like any other group of human beings. They haven't fully solved the efficient communication problem, but no one has. At least, these errors are public. They may make a barrier to participation higher than what we'd wish, but I wouldn't think it's on purpose and you can propose ideas to solve this problem. I have thought about it several times and haven't found a satisfactory solution yet. Accusing of internal decisions based on internal pools may be a step too far. Please be more specific in your accusations so we can discuss things as I did with WeakMap.prototype.clear. The blurry finger-pointing game isn't moving anything forward. On listening to JS devs: 1) over the last couple of years, (at least) Dave Herman and Brendan Eich have been dev-conf-crawling with ES6/future of JavaScript talks, asking for feedback and involvement from the JS devs community. They could have chosen to talk about other things or not talk at all. 2) Rick Waldron and Yehuda Katz who could be easily labeled as coming from the JS dev community have joined TC39. What else do you want? involve many devs. Maybe devs should get involved. I felt concerned about the future of ECMAScript I stepped up. I find particularly ironic that some in the Node.js community are bitching about what happens for modules after saying [3]: We have these standards body [ECMA is cited] and Node made a very very conscious effort to ignore them and have pretty much nothing to do with them. It feels to me that the Node community is discovering that what they are a part of the JavaScript ecosystem, that ECMAScript and TC39 are part of this ecosystem too and they should felt concerned about what's happening to ECMAScript. Hopefully, they'll discover soon enough that they can send feedback based on their experience to affect TC39 decisions. I feel dev involvement boils down to a very simple cost/benefit analysis. Either you feel concerned about the future of JavaScript enough to get involved in discussions that affect your future. Or you're too busy making things happen [4] and that's cool, but you've chosen your priority and that is not the future of JavaScript. David [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts [2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-January/028351.html [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=GaqxIMLLOu8#t=1094s [4] https://twitter.com/substack/status/300085464835174401 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
more specific, I still have one precedent case: I sent out a survey 2 weeks ago and received 381 responses, 256 for return-this and 125 for return something else (undefined, the new length or size, the value). A survey not proposed here, a survey proposed as result after already made decision. If this is never the case I'd like to to think there won't be other exceptions but ... you know, maybe there are other surveys we don't know. http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-%28Map%7CSet%7CWeakMap%29-set%28%29-returns-%60this%60---p34759053.html Last, but not least, I know everyone here is doing what is best and with best intentions, however, I'd like to see that focus is still on what really matters. FirefoxOS is exposing Parallel Arrays ... plus in the wiki there are typed definition struct likes that are implemented nowhere and are one of the best thing ever possibly landed in JavaScript. Where are these **needed** things? If no need to discuss, why these are not implemented yet? http://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/js-ctypes?redirectlocale=en-USredirectslug=js-ctypes On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:33 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote: Le 11/02/2013 00:53, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit : involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide *already decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools* nobody ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen) hmm... I had skipped that part initially. There are some accusations here and, as a JS dev, non-TC39 members, I'd like to say that I disagree strongly. Here are a handful of public things related to TC39: 1) es-discuss 2) meeting notes with extra care and formatting since recently https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes 3) http://wiki.ecmascript.org where drafts and accepted ideas are documented 4) bugs.ecmascript.org 5) spec drafts [1] are released on a monthly-basis I recently questioned a feature [2], based on this public material. Public discussion happened. I'm balanced on the de-facto conclusion, but the least we can agree on is that a public discussion happened. I'm willing to agree on a lot of things like: * the different communication channels create confusion * the wiki isn't always up-to-date (Rick did some good cleaning job recently, though) * some discussions on es-discuss aren't documented in a condensed format and re-happen in some cases * maybe on occasions Allen is too quick in adding things to the spec drafts (WeakMap.prototype.clear case), etc. I personally put all these issues on the fact that TC39 is a group of human beings. They make mistake like any other group of human beings. They haven't fully solved the efficient communication problem, but no one has. At least, these errors are public. They may make a barrier to participation higher than what we'd wish, but I wouldn't think it's on purpose and you can propose ideas to solve this problem. I have thought about it several times and haven't found a satisfactory solution yet. Accusing of internal decisions based on internal pools may be a step too far. Please be more specific in your accusations so we can discuss things as I did with WeakMap.prototype.clear. The blurry finger-pointing game isn't moving anything forward. On listening to JS devs: 1) over the last couple of years, (at least) Dave Herman and Brendan Eich have been dev-conf-crawling with ES6/future of JavaScript talks, asking for feedback and involvement from the JS devs community. They could have chosen to talk about other things or not talk at all. 2) Rick Waldron and Yehuda Katz who could be easily labeled as coming from the JS dev community have joined TC39. What else do you want? involve many devs. Maybe devs should get involved. I felt concerned about the future of ECMAScript I stepped up. I find particularly ironic that some in the Node.js community are bitching about what happens for modules after saying [3]: We have these standards body [ECMA is cited] and Node made a very very conscious effort to ignore them and have pretty much nothing to do with them. It feels to me that the Node community is discovering that what they are a part of the JavaScript ecosystem, that ECMAScript and TC39 are part of this ecosystem too and they should felt concerned about what's happening to ECMAScript. Hopefully, they'll discover soon enough that they can send feedback based on their experience to affect TC39 decisions. I feel dev involvement boils down to a very simple cost/benefit analysis. Either you feel concerned about the future of JavaScript enough to get involved in discussions that affect your future. Or you're too busy making things happen [4] and that's cool, but you've chosen your priority and that is not the future of JavaScript. David [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts [2]
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: snip involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide *already decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools* nobody ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen) I wish you hadn't posted this, it implies something that's not true and reads as incredibly disrespectful. All input, from all sources, is given a fair consideration. It stands to reason that well articulated, thoughtful and well researched input is given more consideration—a fact that's backed by irrefutable, publicly documented evidence. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: more specific, I still have one precedent case: I sent out a survey 2 weeks ago and received 381 responses, 256 for return-this and 125 for return something else (undefined, the new length or size, the value). A survey not proposed here, a survey proposed as result after already made decision. There is an important part of that quote that you (intentionally?) omitted and I don't appreciate it. I like surveying actual developer-users like this, despite the committee's aversion to design-by-survey. TC39 and es-discuss shouldn't make decisions based on a survey. I used the survey as a tool to **help me** decide whether or not the API enhancement was worth pursuing. Feel free to review the results yourself... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap5RnGLtwI1RdHFzM3AyUVFuQkxTSWZnQTRidGJ6QWc If this is never the case I'd like to to think there won't be other exceptions but ... you know, maybe there are other surveys we don't know. Check your facts. The survey was not discussed in the meeting: https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2012-11/nov-29.md#cascading-this-returns Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
I'll change/fix/explain that if you think is respectful, I still never had an answer about that survey (who committed, and who decided that was the way to do the survey). On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: snip involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide *already decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools* nobody ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen) I wish you hadn't posted this, it implies something that's not true and reads as incredibly disrespectful. All input, from all sources, is given a fair consideration. It stands to reason that well articulated, thoughtful and well researched input is given more consideration—a fact that's backed by irrefutable, publicly documented evidence. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
Rick, I have already updated the post and YES, TC39 **should** consider what the rest of the world would like to do or the way has always done something and expecting to do otherwise the one that's not respecting will result to be TC39. So, here, summarized my thoughts, re-explained in that post: my point is that surveys should be public too because if 3 developers cannot represent the entire community, neither can 300 behind the same company, or just a couple. There are many more of us out there, *I'd love to see the possibility to participate every time a decision about an API should be made*! If you think that survey can help you, I completely agree that these should be considered ... developers are those that will use the language, don't make JavaScript as hostile as the DOM could have been in the past, Thank you and everyone else. Regards On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: more specific, I still have one precedent case: I sent out a survey 2 weeks ago and received 381 responses, 256 for return-this and 125 for return something else (undefined, the new length or size, the value). A survey not proposed here, a survey proposed as result after already made decision. There is an important part of that quote that you (intentionally?) omitted and I don't appreciate it. I like surveying actual developer-users like this, despite the committee's aversion to design-by-survey. TC39 and es-discuss shouldn't make decisions based on a survey. I used the survey as a tool to **help me** decide whether or not the API enhancement was worth pursuing. Feel free to review the results yourself... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap5RnGLtwI1RdHFzM3AyUVFuQkxTSWZnQTRidGJ6QWc If this is never the case I'd like to to think there won't be other exceptions but ... you know, maybe there are other surveys we don't know. Check your facts. The survey was not discussed in the meeting: https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2012-11/nov-29.md#cascading-this-returns Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
I wish you hadn't posted this, it implies something that's not true and reads as incredibly disrespectful. All input, from all sources, is given a fair consideration. It stands to reason that well articulated, From my experience, this is not true. You can of course argue on what definitions of a fair consideration and thoughtful and well researched are. thoughtful and well researched input is given more consideration—a fact that's backed by irrefutable, publicly documented evidence. Rick Herby ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: Rick, I have already updated the post and YES, TC39 **should** consider what the rest of the world would like to do or the way has always done something and expecting to do otherwise the one that's not respecting will result to be TC39. I don't follow. So, here, summarized my thoughts, re-explained in that post: my point is that surveys should be public too because if 3 developers cannot represent the entire community, neither can 300 behind the same company, or just a couple. I don't know who answered, I posted it in several high traffic IRC channels and Twitter where people re-tweeted. Again, I just used the survey's results as a method of collecting a sample of data for my own benefit. Please stop acting like this survey was some kind of make or break, it wasn't—get over it. There are many more of us out there, *I'd love to see the possibility to participate every time a decision about an API should be made*! If you think that survey can help you, I completely agree that these should be considered ... developers are those that will use the language, don't make JavaScript as hostile as the DOM could have been in the past, Thank you and everyone else. You lost me. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
And you thought that was useful for you to make a decision but you are part of TC39 that decided that surveys should not make decisions. Rick, I am trying to understand how it works here, and why surveys are not considered and, if considered, why cannot these be public. I did not want to personally attack you, indeed I did not link the case, also because there are other cases where I have read: the fact this library and all devs using this think that is good/OK doesn't mean it is Again, we are all in the same side On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: I'll change/fix/explain that if you think is respectful, I still never had an answer about that survey (who committed, and who decided that was the way to do the survey). I dont understand what you're asking for. I created and published the survey on my own, without any involvement from anyone else. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
I am over, I don't care about that specific survey indeed. It was expected to have hard life here with these kind of thoughts ... just consider this import stuff, node.js community, the fact devs here more than once said: let's do this way and at the end it was done in another ... let's just listen more from both sides. I am sorry you took this personal, it was not, I swear. br On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote: Rick, I have already updated the post and YES, TC39 **should** consider what the rest of the world would like to do or the way has always done something and expecting to do otherwise the one that's not respecting will result to be TC39. I don't follow. So, here, summarized my thoughts, re-explained in that post: my point is that surveys should be public too because if 3 developers cannot represent the entire community, neither can 300 behind the same company, or just a couple. I don't know who answered, I posted it in several high traffic IRC channels and Twitter where people re-tweeted. Again, I just used the survey's results as a method of collecting a sample of data for my own benefit. Please stop acting like this survey was some kind of make or break, it wasn't—get over it. There are many more of us out there, *I'd love to see the possibility to participate every time a decision about an API should be made*! If you think that survey can help you, I completely agree that these should be considered ... developers are those that will use the language, don't make JavaScript as hostile as the DOM could have been in the past, Thank you and everyone else. You lost me. Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
thoughts on ES6+ direction + modules
Apologies if I am bothering here but, you know, where else put these topics under your attention? :) So, one is about trying to do not loose focus on what's already out there and how is used http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2013/02/jokes-part.html tl;dr For A Better JS Future 1. do not break what has been widely adopted already, unless that's really bad in terms of security 2. try to stick with the already available and standardized syntax, allowing partial or full polyfills because of graceful *OS, Environment, Browsers, Engines, whatever!*migration 3. involve as many developers as possible, rather than provide *already decided internal decisions based in already decided internal pools* nobody ever heard about out there (public pools or it didn't happen) ES5 and 5.1 are the best thing happened to JS in the last 10 years ... I really hope that good part will be in ES.next too. We have transpilers for everything else, we need few better things today and FirefoxOS knows it, as example ... I'd love to see discussions about all Mozilla proposals for FirefoxOS and not always some tedious syntax for classes discussion, you know what I mean. ie where are structs and typed objects ? this is awesome, not the @@symbol nobody misses for real ... same is for WeakMaps, are these final? And how about dropping the __proto__ shenanigans and use Object.setPrototypeOf() since the get version we have already? The other one is about playing with ES3 JavaScript syntax in order to simulate what has been discussed about import from and modules (so, there is a summary first, and a library after) http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2013/02/javascript-modules-maybe.html I'd appreciate thoughts on these topics, specially on the first topic. Thanks ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
