On 13 October 2013 19:49, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson mailto:erik.arvids...@gmail.com
October 13, 2013 10:32 AM
We did proposes this back in 2011
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:scoped_object_extensions
I wasn't at this actual F2F meeting so I
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Anne van Kesteren mailto:ann...@annevk.nl
It would require each end point that wants to support this to have new
syntax. A solution from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Zip#URLs will not
require updating all the end points.
Anne van Kesteren mailto:ann...@annevk.nl
October 14, 2013 6:16 AM
The idea is to use a somewhat more unique separator, e.g. $sub/. Old
browsers would simply fetch the URL from the server and if the server
is written with legacy in mind would serve up the file from there. New
browsers would
On 13/10/2013, at 21:34, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge Chamorro wrote:
Are main.js and assets.zip two separate files, or is main.js expected to
come from into assets.zip?
The latter.
I think the latter would be best because it would guarantee that the assets
are there by the time
Le 14/10/2013 15:16, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
The idea is to use a somewhat more unique separator, e.g. $sub/. Old
browsers would simply fetch the URL from the server and if the server
is written with legacy in mind would serve up the file from there. New
browsers would realize it's a
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
My take-away was that scoped extension methods are only bearable in a
language with a static, nominal class system (like C#), where the
additional lookup dimension can be resolved at compile time.
Right.
The http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Berg03aClassboxes.pdf
Till Schneidereit mailto:t...@tillschneidereit.net
October 13, 2013 2:39 PM
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Till Schneidereitmailto:t...@tillschneidereit.net
October 13, 2013 11:28 AM
And now it causes problem for TC39, browser vendors, sites that use it
On 14/10/2013, at 17:20, David Bruant wrote:
How much are we trying to save with the bundling proposal? 200ms? 300ms? Is
it really worth it? I feels like we're trying to solve a first-world problem.
I think that the savings depend very much on the latency. For example from
where I am to
IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
However, I've solved that using a single js Object with all modules
packed as strings and parsed at require time once to avoid huge
overhead by parsing everything at once. The name is require-client and
once gzipped gives similar
On 2 Oct 2013, at 10:45, Petka Antonov petka_anto...@hotmail.com wrote:
In current version, this works just fine:
var let = 6;
Note that `let` was reserved in strict mode (only) in ES5, meaning that even as
per ES5 that snippet only works in sloppy mode.
the module, if interested:
https://github.com/WebReflection/require_client#require_client
Best Regards
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
However, I've solved that using a
Does this performance hit still exist in light of Symbol? It seems you
could build lexical extensions on top of it without introducing a
performance penalty.
On Oct 13, 2013 10:49 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Erik Arvidsson
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Mathias Bynens wrote:
On 2 Oct 2013, at 10:45, Petka Antonov petka_anto...@hotmail.com wrote:
In current version, this works just fine:
var let = 6;
Note that `let` was reserved in strict mode (only) in ES5, meaning that even
as per ES5 that snippet
On Oct 14, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
My take-away was that scoped extension methods are only bearable in a
language with a static, nominal class system (like C#), where the
additional lookup dimension can be resolved at compile time.
Right.
The
Allen Wirfs-Brock mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com
October 14, 2013 10:52 AM
I'm not sure I buy your Smalltalk has nominal class types assertion,
I defer to your Smalltalk expertise :-P. However, there's nothing I know
of that allows unrelated class definitions to be related by the subclass
On Oct 14, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com
October 14, 2013 10:52 AM
I'm not sure I buy your Smalltalk has nominal class types assertion,
I defer to your Smalltalk expertise :-P. However, there's nothing I know of
that allows
John Lenz mailto:concavel...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 9:59 AM
Does this performance hit still exist in light of Symbol?
Yes. Symbol is just an alternative property name type. Think of it in
pseudo-ML:
type PropertyName = String | Symbol
where of course practical engines optimize
Allen Wirfs-Brock mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com
October 14, 2013 11:19 AM
You can dynamically change the superclass of a class but that will
trigger the recompilation process for that class and its subclasses
(implies that superclass to subclass links must be available). This is
mostly about
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So, see the
http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/**papers/Berg03aClassboxes.pdfhttp://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Berg03aClassboxes.pdf
work,
which inspired Ruby refinements as well as the scoped object extensions
strawman, and
Let me start by apologizing for adding noise to the list.
I looked for discussion of the standardization of __proto__ in the ES6 spec
and couldn't find any. This is probably my shortcoming but I didn't know
where to look or how to search the mailing list.
I found a lot of threads discussing
I get that this isn't really the same, but I think one really viable
solution for the scoped method problem (which is really just the expression
problem, right?) is the proposed bind operator
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:bind_operator
It doesn't use dots, so it won't mask the
Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum mailto:ing...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 12:37 PM
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
So, see the
http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Berg03aClassboxes.pdf work, which
inspired Ruby refinements as well
On 14/10/2013, at 18:47, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
IIRC roundtrip happens once per domain so your math is a bit off.
Can you elaborate? I don't quite understand...
Thank you,
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Russell Leggett mailto:russell.legg...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 12:51 PM
I get that this isn't really the same, but I think one really viable
solution for the scoped method problem (which is really just the
expression problem, right?)
The expression problem
To search es-discuss, I use site:mail.mozilla.org es-discuss as first
two terms in a Google search. Sometimes I just use es-discuss. If you
add __proto__ you'll find lots to read. Add meeting notes and you'll
find recorded TC39 decisions.
I usually find links and include them here to avoid
I think I had a problem articulating my thoughts in this last one.
I was trying *not* to tie my cart in front of the horse. Even before
worrying about implementer performance issues which sound important I
wanted to know if:
The problem I had was a real problem to other developers too
and it was
Le 14/10/2013 18:21, Jorge Chamorro a écrit :
On 14/10/2013, at 17:20, David Bruant wrote:
How much are we trying to save with the bundling proposal? 200ms? 300ms? Is it
really worth it? I feels like we're trying to solve a first-world problem.
I think that the savings depend very much on
Thanks. Found a bunch of interesting things. Hopefully I'll find some use
case where it doesn't completely break the beautiful OOP behavioral typing
gives us when we play nice with it (Yep, that dog of yours, he's no longer
an animal) :)
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Brendan Eich
Yes, it's hard to search in this mailing list but luckily not everyone in
here will tell you not to be that guy that clearly didn't read anything
and is just annoying ^_^
Since I've personally pushed to drop `__proto__` I might be the right
person to give you pros and cons.
Feel free to ask me
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it's hard to search in this mailing list but luckily not everyone in
here will tell you not to be that guy that clearly didn't read anything
and is just annoying ^_^
Brendan, since you participated,
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
__Current Status__
(Thanks for the dunders! :-P)
Instead of formalizing its form, ES6 accepted `Object.setPrototypeOf`
as described in specs and decided to silently move beside, but still
have in specs, the dunder `__proto__` form, fixing at least a couple
of
__Thanks__ ! This is really above and beyond what I could have asked for. I
really wish there was an easy way to search the list like tags. I've been
reading for a while but when I want to bring up, learn more about or
discuss things - not being able to search really sucks. It makes me want to
Andrea Giammarchi mailto:andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 1:32 PM
I meant that IIRC `obj[__proto__]` should not invoke that Annex B
specified getter (@Benjamin, Annex B is where you'll find everything
related indeed) but `obj.__proto__` will ... unless once again I've
missed some
You are breaking an opened door with me and I've indeed pushed to **not**
have `__dunder__` specd but, for how much remote anger I still have against
some decision some famous library and its main author made few months ago
...
* web developers and specially library authors are usually more
Then I might have confused what decided with `JSON` serialization where
`__proto__` will be a property and not a setter, neither a getter once
deserialized.
Is this correct? Yeah, I remember that different accessors looked weird to
me too ... thanks for clarification.
Best Regards
On Mon, Oct
From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Brendan Eich
[bren...@mozilla.com]
Our duty as a standards body includes specifying de-facto standards which
browsers must implement to interop. __proto__ is one such.
It's worth highlighting this aspect of the situation. This
`JSON` serialization = `JSON` parse
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I might have confused what decided with `JSON` serialization where
`__proto__` will be a property and not a setter, neither a getter once
deserialized.
Is this
From
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/file/d/0BxVCLS4f8Sg5NWZmM2NjZWEtYmExMS00Y2EzLWE3ZTMtNzFmYjYwYzBiOTIw/edit?hl=en_US,
apparently in 1988:
The Committee’s overall goal was to develop a clear, consistent, and
unambiguous Standard for the C programming language which codifies the
common,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Russell Leggett mailto:russell.leggett@gmail.**comrussell.legg...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 12:51 PM
I get that this isn't really the same, but I think one really viable
solution for the scoped method problem (which
Russell Leggett mailto:russell.legg...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 2:07 PM
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com
mailto:bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Russell Leggett mailto:russell.legg...@gmail.com
mailto:russell.legg...@gmail.com
October 14,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum mailto:ing...@gmail.com
October 14, 2013 1:33 PM
__Thanks__ ! This is really above and beyond what I could have asked for.
Beware that what Andreas wrote about __proto__ in ES6 was not
On 14/10/2013, at 22:11, David Bruant wrote:
You already can with inlining, can't you?
Yes and no:
-It's much more complicated than pre zipping a bunch of files and adding a ref
attribute.
-It requires additional logic at the server side, and more programming.
-It's not trivial always: often
I'm concerned about the latest version of this on the wiki. The
edition parameter requires that we ship 2 tables today. This seems
like it might change to 3 in ES7 and n in ES(n+4). I think the only
reasonable requirement is that it matches what the engine actually
uses. For tools it seems better
On 14/10/2013, at 22:27, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
AFAIK you have those 500ms delay per roundtrip, as you said, but not per
domain.
I am talking about mobile and radio behavior where fetching from multiple
sources will result in a roundtrip mess/hell but fetching all resources from
a
Rick Waldron wrote:
Do you mean more then inclusion in Annex B?
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-other-additional-features
http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-other-additional-features
The committee and community made the right move to go with
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I'm concerned about the latest version of this on the wiki. The
edition parameter requires that we ship 2 tablestoday. This seems
like it might change to 3 in ES7 and n in ES(n+4). I think the only
reasonable requirement is that it matches what the engine actually
uses.
Jorge Chamorro wrote:
The only work around for that is making as few requests as possible.
+∞, +§, and beyond.
This is deeply true, and a hot topic with browser/network-stack
engineers right now.
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
I think you may have mixed up a few things:
1. JSON does not recognize '__proto__' per its unchanging spec, and so
parsing that identifier makes an own data property.
2. var obj = {__proto__: proto}; is a special form, unlike any other
identifier __proto__ as the literal property name does
This is probably the wrong place to ask the question, but I was just
thinking about the whole HTTP 2 server push thing. In a way, it surely wins
in the # of requests camp if it works as described - you request index.html
and the server intelligently starts pushing you not only index.html, but
also
On 14/10/2013, at 22:11, David Bruant wrote:
You already can with inlining, can't you?
It would also be very interesting to know if you had .zip packing, would you be
inlining?
--
( Jorge )();
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Inline, from the Moon
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro jo...@jorgechamorro.comwrote:
What I meant with round-trip latency is: once the connection has been
established
I was talking about this latency, those 500ms in my example
, a network packet takes almost 250 ms to go
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Rick Waldron wrote:
Do you mean more then inclusion in Annex B? http://people.mozilla.org/~**
Allen my confusion is with o4 ... what happens once you re-set/assign its
`__proto__` there?
Is it just a normal property so new value will be set ?
Is it a magic inherited thing (it shouldn't) that will change the o4
prototype chain ?
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Russell Leggett wrote:
It doesn't use dots, so it won't mask the difference between the normal
prototype chain with some additional scoped binding (for good or ill), but
along with it comes the clarity and comfort of lexical binding and also
On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Allen my confusion is with o4 ... what happens once you re-set/assign its
`__proto__` there?
Is it just a normal property so new value will be set ?
Is it a magic inherited thing (it shouldn't) that will change the o4
prototype chain
we are lucky enough there's no browser without a native JSON object that
uses the D. Crockford polyfill ^_^
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Allen my confusion is with o4 ... what happens once
(early sent) I meant passing through the prototype. The unmagic behavior
is when you deal with such object thinking accessing its `__proto__` will
behave like others. So it's the other way round but again, I know all of
this, I was just confused by it and explained indeed with an example code
how
57 matches
Mail list logo
