Re: how many async-modules can js-app practically load?

If you come up with a benchmark for this, would you mind sharing the code and not just the results? I'm curious how my stuff will fare. I'm in an environment where it is still not practical to use ES modules, and have started work again on BravoJS, which implements the old CommonJS Modules/2.0

Re: Re: Proposal: native XML object support.

As a data point -- I was writing JavaScript applications with GPSEE, a server-side Spidermonkey embedding, for several years until recently. The design pattern was, for all intents and purposes, CGI. GPSEE has E4X capability. I used it a few times to generate xhtml documents. I never found a

Re: How many ES5 environments are still in use today?

We still use ES5 for development, since our server-side platform (GPSEE) doesn't run on later SpiderMonkey (embedding API made massive changes a couple of years ago and we haven't had resources to update.massive changes) I am working closely with another company right now that uses NodeJS.

Re: How it feels to learn JavaScript in 2016

On 27 October 2017 at 01:48, kai zhu wrote: > es6 is essentially javascript++, like c/c++. you can't expect senior > c programmers to trivially transition projects to c++, or for existing > c toolings to automatically extend to c++. > > Really? I was in that particular

Re: Officially support a shebang line

In gpsee (using spidermonkey), we allow executable programs exactly the same way as a shell script, and there is no real penalty from a JavaScript parsing POV. I'm not sure why node+v8 would be any different. We just hand over the script to the parser with the pointer pointing to the newline at

Re: Proposal of Multithread JavaScript

If anybody wants to play with MT ES (I'm not saying I think this is a good idea) -- you might want to dig up a ~ten-year old version of Spidermonkey, perhaps the JS 1.7 release (MT "safety" broke with Array Extras). Then add this code, which implements a basic Thread class:

Re: Proposal of Multithread JavaScript

There is no requirement for a host environment to use any kind of serialization for worker threads. It's completely fine to pass messages which are binary in nature. In fact, I have passed C structs as messages between JavaScript workers. I don't know why you think this is a fight. You should

Re: Proposal of Multithread JavaScript

Please do. I have also done some work in this area. I have also implemented asynchronous POSIX signals (fraught with peril) and fork(). Entertaining stuff. My major problem has always been entrainment of crap from the global object. Although it has been a few years since I looked at this

Re: Proposal of Multithread JavaScript

I'm still confused about what problem we are trying to solve here. I had pthreads-style JS running in JS 1.7 many years ago ( https://github.com/wesgarland/gpsee/tree/master/modules/thread), and after investing quite a lot of time in making it work, I found that it wasn't really all that useful

Re: Thought about const

How often do you type const in a day? Saving 2 characters will save you 250ms assuming you are a decent keyboardist. I'll trade 250ms of typing for clarity any day. Wes Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2016, at 08:00, Cyril Auburtin wrote: After a year of using

Re: Language design

That root post ignored compatibility constraints that have been discussed to death over the years, and just glibly asserted that == and === could be changed. The last time == and === were changed (JS 1.1-1.2-1.3) I was a pretty green developer building a very large DHTML application. I lost

Re: ModuleSpecifier: include .js or not?

Some food for thought from a non-standard use-case. In GPSEE, we can require(module) - but we support both modules written in JavaScript, and modules written in C (technically, any compiled binary with the correct C API), or both. We dlload(module.so) (if present), then interpret module.js (if

Re: Q: Lonely surrogates and unicode regexps

Some interesting questions here. 1 - What is a character? Is it a Unicode Code Point? 2 - Should we be able to match all possible JS Strings? 3 - Should we be able to match all possible Unicode Strings? 4 - What do we do if there is a character in a String we cannot match? 5 - Do unmatchable

Re: Machine readable specifications

The specification is hard enough to digest for average developers now; I'd hate to point one of my guys at a machine-readable document when he's having trouble with some corner-case. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org

Re: Machine readable specifications

On 22 March 2013 08:41, gaz Heyes gazhe...@gmail.com wrote: You wouldn't do that, you'd point them to the human readable form. The machine version is specifically designed to be read by machines with low overhead to update functionality without touching code. Is there a formalized way to

Re: 10 biggest JS pitfalls

You did not include variants of var i, a=[]; for (i=0; i 10; i++) { a.push(print(i)); } print(a[3]); /* output is 9 */ in your list. I see related bugs on a regular basis. The other place I see regular bugs by intermediate coders is related to 'this' in events; but I'm not sure if we can

Re: @@iterator in arguments object

Arguments object is used here to fill the rest void, but also as an argument to apply (after converting into a real array) when writing wrapper functions; eg monkey patches, userspace profiling, etc. Is there an ES6 way to use apply on rest params? If not, arguments must live on. Sent from my

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 24 July 2012 05:03, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.com wrote: Hm, I hadn't thought about that, but my intuition tells me that there should be an export object for every module, with just the exports, and that this export object should be accessible from the module object. Being able to

Re: Fwd: delay keyword

On 5 July 2012 11:19, Patrik Stutz patrik.st...@gmail.com wrote: Oh I didn't know that Isaac is also unhappy with the whole javascript module thing. I tought that, since there already so much modules for node.js it is pointless to ask them to change their module system, so that node modules

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 27 June 2012 15:45, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote: By implementing it in SpiderMonkey! :) That's cheating! : ) A social note: designing the module system for ES6 is a difficult position to be in because there's already a more or less de facto module system in place (derived

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 27 June 2012 17:21, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: Certainly you shouldn't have to create a userland loader in order to get examples like I've written to work. You should only ever need to create a loader if you want to customize things, such as redirecting some things to

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 27 June 2012 17:40, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote: What request do you send to ask for multiple modules? We send a request like /methods/modules?root=pathto/mystuffid=/sha256id=/auth/password The client canonicalizes each CommonJS dependency to its full (canonical) path and

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 26 June 2012 16:45, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Isaac, I share some of your concerns as well. I like the idea of import just returning an object, which can be destructured using let. I also like the idea of eliminating the import * syntax. However, I think that dynamic

Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

On 26 June 2012 18:36, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote: Node.js's way is good, except the transitive dependency issue mentioned in your post which in some cases indeed can cause problems. Does Node not handle transitive dependencies per CommonJS Modules/1.0? What I find bad (1)

Re: ||= is much needed?

Yes, we could make ?? and ??= do the same for null as for undefined. I'm not sure that's the right choice, but it's a choice. Introducing yet another way to think about values in ES is not going to help most programmers. We already have to think about thinks like undefined and falsey -- what's

Re: ||= is much needed?

On 13 June 2012 03:45, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote: Is the reason for using ?: rather than ?? because we may want it for my desired second ternary? E.g., from my other message: Something else to consider; if we use (a ?: b), it would have to be equivalent to (a ? a : b) with

Re: ||= is much needed?

This breaks from JS's C-inspired assignment operators, but perhaps we can live with it. FWIW -- I was confused when I first read ||=, I thought it was supposed to be some kind of Boolean-coercing variant on |=. Now I see that it is more like ?= from GNU make. What do you think of GCC's ?:

Re: Error stack

error.stackFrames, an Array which contains one object per stack frame, describing function name (if any), filename, line number, some kind of instance Id (for closures), arguments, and closed-over variables would be absolutely incredible from my POV. Tie it up in a nice package that can be

Re: Error stack

It might be out of scope, but as a developer, I would almost give my left nut to have the kind of information in Brendan's example. Even more so if it the browser guys made it available as an argument to the window.onerror callback. Wes -- Wesley W. Garland Director, Product Development

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

On 22 May 2012 12:54, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how a FFI could really help developers. FFIs are certainly helpful in many situations. I don't think this is one of them. Let me relay a relevant xperience. We develop applications in Server-Side JavaScript. We

ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

This thread brings up an interesting question: Once we have modules, should we have a place other than ECMA-262 to define standard host-environment libraries that ship with browsers? On 21 May 2012 04:54, Jussi Kalliokoski jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:53 PM,

Re: ECMA-262 purview? was re: FFT module

This reminds me of a different topic: foreign function interface. [...] Thoughts? 1. I'm not sure this belongs in ES 2. If TC-39 starts looking at this, I would like to contribute somehow. I have significant experience in this area, and can share knowledge gleaned from an ES-centric

Re: The new operator

On 13 May 2012 13:57, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Protocols are fine and perhaps a new-free one will take over some years hence, but not soon. - Should there be alternate, possibly less confusing, ways of coercing values? ToPrimitive() would certainly be nice to have. An

Re: typeof null

It looks to me like this code would work just fine by removing the word 'typeof'. What am I missing? On 8 May 2012 12:19, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: module Foo { export function create( options ) { if ( typeof options === null ) { return ... some default thing;

Re: Fun impossible Firefox JS challenge

On 12 April 2012 15:37, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: Right chrome and safari log undefined in that case. FF and IE9 syntax error out on the var declaration. As long as we're exploring web compat, here's a historical view of SpiderMonkey behaviour -- JS 1.8.5 (~ Firefox 4)

Re: Terminology: “non-method function”

From a developer's POV - the terms bound/unbound makes a create deal of sense, since already have bind, which effectively turns an unbound function into a bound function. It basically completes the thought and makes it easy to explain. Heck, it even makes this behaviour easy to explain:

Re: Development Mode/Production Mode

In a similar vein, I would personally like to have zero-cost-when-not-debugging assert() statements, and am hopeful that statically-linked modules might lead the way. We currently have LOW cost assert() statements, but these are still not suitable for hot loops. We can turn them into zero-cost

Re: Modules feedback, proposal

On 31 March 2012 21:30, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote: Yeah, I've thought about auto-appending .js. I think you're right that it opens up the possibility to be a little more abstract. FWIW -- the CommonJS convention of auto-appending .js has been a real boon to us when writing GPSEE

Re: Modules feedback, proposal

On 1 April 2012 08:22, Wes Garland w...@page.ca wrote: the JS application developer never needs to know what language the application is written in. Sorry, what language the *module* is written in. Wes -- Wesley W. Garland Director, Product Development PageMail, Inc. +1 613 542 2787 x 102

Re: Learning from requirejs

We face basically this same problem in our day-to-day development -- here's how we do it: food for thought We use BravoJS as our module system, which targets CommonJS Modules/2.0-draft 8 (not an officially endorsed standard). From the ten-mile-POV, BravoJS works by loading the entire module

Re: module path resolution

On 25 March 2012 03:07, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote: One thing that would be nice that we don't currently have is the ability to load modules relative to the calling web page. This is an oversight in our loader. I'm curious: What is the use case for that? The case where you

Re: module path resolution

On 23 March 2012 21:59, Irakli Gozalishvili rfo...@gmail.com wrote: A. ./foo.js ../foo/bar.js B. foo.js, foo/bar.js I'd suggest to resolve A type paths relative to a requirer (ether require module url, or document url). And resolve B type paths relative to a `document.baseURI`. This is

Re: Full Unicode based on UTF-16 proposal

On 24 March 2012 17:22, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote: I'm not 100% clear on this point yet, but e.g. the SourceCharacter production in Annex A.1 is described as any Unicode code unit. Ugh, IMHO, that's wrong, and should be any Unicode code point. (let the flames begin?) The

Re: How about replacing | with -

On 1 March 2012 19:34, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have it available for functions? I am always reticent to re-use lexical features of one language when implementing in another with wildly different

Re: Native JSON loading (was: system module loader)

What about native JSON loading? How would this be different from XHR + JSON.parse() sugar? Are you proposing loading the JSON from the server as though it were a module? FWIW, most of my JSON-loading use cases are post-page-load, they are of the fetch some data from the server based on user

Re: Consider extending JSON grammar to support objects with circular reference

Mozilla used to support something like this, it is being removed in Firefox 12, but perhaps the implementation can give you ideas. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Sharp_variables_in_JavaScript Wes On 5 March 2012 07:49, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 13:35, 程劭非

Re: Math.clz()

Can we really add a Bit namespace without breaking the web? Maybe Math.Bit if we really want a bitwise operation namespace? clz, clo, the names are cryptic but so are their applications -- so I think it's a good fit. zLen and oLen might also make good names. These could be handy for other

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

Erratum: var a = [0]; should read var a = []; ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 21 February 2012 00:03, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: These are byte-based enodings, no? What is the problem inflating them by zero extension to 16 bits now (or 21 bits in the future)? You can't make an invalid Unicode character from a byte value. One of my examples, GB 18030,

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 20 February 2012 00:45, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: 2) Allow invalid unicode characters in strings, and preserve them over concatenation – (\uD800 + \uDC00).length == 2. I think 2) is the only reasonable alternative. I think so, too -- especially as any sequence of

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 19 February 2012 16:34, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: Wes Garland wrote: Is there a proposal for interaction with JSON? From http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627, 2.5 *snip* - so the proposal is to keep encoding JSON in UTF-16. What happens if the BRS is set to Unicode and we

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 20 February 2012 09:56, Andrew Oakley and...@ado.is-a-geek.net wrote: While this is being discussed, for any new string handling I think we should make any invalid strings (according to the rules in Unicode) cause some kind of exception on creation. Can you clarify which definition in

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 20 February 2012 16:00, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: My sense is that there are a fairly large variety of string data types could be use the existing ES5 string type as a target type and for which many of the String.prototuype.* methods would function just fine The

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

On 19 February 2012 03:33, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: S1 dates from when Unicode fit in 16 bits, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em (Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say ;-). Say, is that an onion on your belt? * indexing by characters, not

Re: Native Assertion module?

There's both room and need for a built-in assert() IMHO -- I would like one which magically compiles to nothing in production code. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Let's kill terms native and host

On 30 January 2012 11:56, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: this was part of what I was trying to get at in using the phrase application level semantics. The distinction really isn't very different from object created via object literals (or any other standard mechanism). They

Re: Any plan for a Zlib API ?

Why wouldn't you just fix this at the HTTP level with Content-Transfer-Encoding negotiation of some sort? Out of curiosity, what are you sending to the server that that requires additional compression? Remember that zlib is not useful on PNG, JPEG, etc content. Wes -- Wesley W. Garland

Re: Let's kill terms native and host

On 28 January 2012 22:51, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote: Just because an object is provided as part of the host environment does *not* make it a host object. Given your statements above, I suspect that the Node objects you have in mind are all simply native objects provided by the

Re: Deep cloning objects defined by JSON.

On 22 January 2012 16:05, Jake Verbaten rayn...@gmail.com wrote: The idea here is that methods do not belong in data structures (clone should be to efficiently clone data). Method vs. Property is a false dichotomy in functional languages, IMO. A method is merely a property whose value is a

Re: January 19 meeting notes

On 20 January 2012 09:22, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote: +1. I see no point why let e; should not shadow argument e here. I do. It is a virtual certainty that this form was used accidentally by the developer, which indicates a flaw in the developer's thinking -- probably due to

Re: January 19 meeting notes

On 19 January 2012 23:02, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote: Yes kids, this means we are going with MarkM's lambda desugaring from: https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2008-**October/007819.htmlhttps://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-October/007819.html So any

Re: Jan 18 meeting notes

Object.classOf(x) - Object.prototype.toString.call (x).slice(8, -1) using the original value of O.p.toString. Comments? Including the name of the module that the class comes from might be nice. We do that for classes implemented in C in GPSEE modules today by being bad -- we modify

Re: Harmony modules feedback

On 16 January 2012 14:20, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.comwrote: var module = require(module); is totally fine but require(module, function (module) { // is totally fine too }); latter could be synchronous in node.js and asynchronous in the web, who cares, as long as it

Re: Better Native XML Support

On 17 January 2012 13:05, Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote: After all, e4x is just an extension to JS, it should be possible to add the data types natively and then make any e4x code work as syntactic sugar, which you can desugar yourself. I don't really know the details, but

Re: Octal literals have their uses (you Unix haters skip this one)

I'll chime in with my vote - I would LOVE to be able to use octal literals again in GPSEE for setting file permissions. chmod(filename, parseInt(777, 8)) just looks stupid when chmod(filename, 0777) would work just fine. Wes On 12 January 2012 14:11, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com

Re: String concatenation

On 6 October 2011 14:09, Tom Schuster t...@schuster.me wrote: (1) is in fact really good optimized in modern engines. (In case you are interested search for Ropes: an alternative to strings) You don't even need ropes to make this fast for a lot of common cases. I think even a naive

Re: An Introduction to JS-Ctypes

Andrea; On 17 September 2011 04:12, Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.comwrote: I know current Mozilla implementation is not exactly what will be in JS.next but it was the only way I had to test efficiency of this proposal and performances speaking it looks like an epic fail so far

Re: IDE support?

Speaking pragmatically, for myself and my unusual (server-side) environment: On 13 September 2011 10:48, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: Does JS need to be as fast as Java? Would half as fast be enough? If it's compute-bound then that's plenty. Provided we develop so that we can

Re: IDE support?

Great post, Allen! On 13 September 2011 15:01, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote: We need to do the same thing with our JS tools. All of the great dynamic language IDEs (that, BTW, preceded and largely inspired the modern static language IDEs) were live environments. They

Re: IDE support?

On 12 September 2011 16:31, François REMY fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr wrote: JavaScript is simple for the developer, but sometimes its flexibility makes it impossible to optimize code properly. And it makes JavaScript slower. I made this graph earlier this year, coincident with the Firefox 4

Re: ES Style Question

On 9 September 2011 16:06, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote: I was actually very specifically looking for an answer regarding First letter casing for non-constructor built-in objects, ie. Math and Proxy. I think the legacy Java style guide influence addresses the question as best as

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 16 May 2011 17:42, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 5/16/11 4:38 PM, Wes Garland wrote: Two great things about strings composed of Unicode code points: ... If though this is a breaking change from ES-5, I support it whole-heartedly but I expect breakage to be very limited

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 17 May 2011 12:36, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: Not quite: code points D800-DFFF are reserved code points which are not representable with UTF-16. Nor with any other Unicode encoding, really. They don't represent, on their own, Unicode characters. Right - but they are still

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 17 May 2011 14:39, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 5/17/11 2:12 PM, Wes Garland wrote: That said, you can encode these code points with utf-8; for example, 0xdc08 becomes 0xed 0xb0 0x88. By the same argument, you can encode them in UTF-16. The byte sequence above is not valid

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 17 May 2011 15:00, Phillips, Addison addi...@lab126.com wrote: 2. Allowing unpaired surrogates is a *requirement*. Yes, such a string is ill-formed, but there are too many cases in which one might wish to have such broken strings for scripting purposes. 3. We should have escape syntax for

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 17 May 2011 16:03, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 5/17/11 3:29 PM, Wes Garland wrote: The problem is that UTF-16 cannot represent all possible code points. My point is that neither can UTF-8. Can you name an encoding that _can_ represent the surrogate-range codepoints? UTF

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

On 17 May 2011 20:09, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 5/17/11 5:24 PM, Wes Garland wrote: Okay, I think we have to agree to disagree here. I believe my reading of the spec is correct. Sorry, but no... how much more clear can the spec get? In the past, I have read it thus

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

Mark; Are you Dr. *Mark E. Davis* (born September 13, 1952 (age 58)), co-founder of the Unicode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_Consortiumsince its incorporation in 1991? (If so, uh, thanks for giving me

Re: Full Unicode strings strawman

Allen; Thanks for putting this together. We use Unicode data extensively in both our web and server-side applications, and being forced to deal with UTF-16 surrogate pair directly -- rather than letting the String implementation deal with them -- is a constant source of mild pain. At first

Re: Automatic Semicolon Insertion: value vs cost; predictability and control; alternatives

On 17 April 2011 20:09, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote: Function.prototype.toString says yes. That's not a really valid evaluation IMO. At least in mozilla's case, the semi colon appears in this by virtue of the bytecode decompiler putting a semicolon at the end of every statement.

Re: Removing labels

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote: When people say Tennent's correspondence principle to mean something like beta-conversion is semantics-preserving I believe this post is where they got the impression that it has to do with Tennent. For better or worse,

Re: That hash symbol

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: This es-discuss group sounds exactly like that ES Tech group -- why make a new one? I've always considered this group to be about super-fine nit-picky points of ES, clarifications about recent changes, and well-thought

Re: That hash symbol

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, David Foley wrote: My response was simply this : assuming normative scope in conversational tone, that I would welcome is a venue where end users (engineers and architects as well as

Re: Bringing setTimeout to ECMAScript

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote: will eventually fire g() before f() is nodejs: https://github.com/joyent/node/pull/604 I've never seen that in any browser. This sounds like a bug in Node's clamping algorithm. Wes -- Wesley W. Garland Director,

Re: Bringing setTimeout to ECMAScript

It doesn't, so we're going to need a non-clamping alias. Perhaps an [ugly] setTimeout ( ƒ, -1 ) ? I posit that the clamping behaviour and timer resolution are domain-specific (embedding-specific) implementation details. Browser makers have been able to deal with run-away CPU scripts, even the

Re: Bringing setTimeout to ECMAScript

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote: The idea is not stupid at all. It's perfectly sound. For example, the delay example you noticed could be made primitive and setTimeout built out of that. Either can be built from the other. The advantage of layering

Re: Bringing setTimeout to ECMAScript

Kyle; On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Kyle Simpson get...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking as someone who has written and currently maintains a *synchronous* server-side JavaScript environment (based on V8), I resemble this description, except that my platform is built on SpiderMonkey rather than

Re: iteration order for Object

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote: I believe it is very very important that the ECMAScript standard specify that when a new Object is created, for..in iteration traverses properties in the order they are added, regardless of whether the properties are

Interesting ES5 side effect / window.hasOwnProperty(x) !== hasOwnProperty(x)

I bumped into something this morning that I thought might be worth pointing out -- mostly because I was surprised to have seemingly-valid ES3 code break on an ES5 browser without strict mode in play. One of my developers has a habit of writing tests like if (!hasOwnProperty(console)) //

Re: Interesting ES5 side effect / window.hasOwnProperty(x) !== hasOwnProperty(x)

Or am I missing something? Yes -- programmers do all kinds of crazy and unexpected things. :) Wes -- Wesley W. Garland Director, Product Development PageMail, Inc. +1 613 542 2787 x 102 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org

Re: Simple Modules: lazy dependency evaluation

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: CommonJS may do that on the server side, assuming fast enough file i/o. It's not necessarily a good idea even there (Ryan Dahl has talked about this). On the client, it's right out, which is why client-side CommonJS-like

Re: Jan 20 meeting notes

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: This is the killer for me. Do not want to change === and require all-paths runtime test coverage to migrate code into Harmony. You're bang-on about the end user impact of this change - I would not be able to migrate any

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 35, Issue 25

Precedent and developer conversations I've had strongly suggest that some code wants mutable primordials on the inside of a module that can be consumed without the mutations affecting the importer's primordials. It would be *really* interesting to have module-local prototypes -- and not