On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Havoc Pennington <havoc.penning...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So perhaps it would be a good idea to just stick to a JS defined in >> some standard widely used for all GNOME code, in order to avoid future >> headaches, and consider other languages with real self-extension >> capabilities if we are really serious about "using whatever dialects >> make our life easier" (<mandatory plug for the Lisp family of >> languages>). > > The problem is that JS-with-a-few-basic-enhancements is just _so_ much > better than least-common-denominator-web-JS. There's no need to go > down a slippery slope of a million enhancements, just to fix some > basic stuff... like variable scoping. Web JS is why people think "ugh, > JavaScript"
While this might be true (although personally I remember 'let' more like "that's a nice improvement" more than "OMG that makes the language usable") I think that as long as these are vendor-specific extensions it's risky to go that path unless the benefits *really* make a difference. Today it's JSC vs SpiderMonkey, but in 3 years there might be two more good engines, and perhaps we'd like to move to one of them. I guess in the end it's just a matter of deciding if those extensions are worth locking yourself in a particular implementation of the language or not. Owen has said that he'd only really miss destructuring assignment I think, your opinion is that 'let' is a deal breaker? Xan _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list