ES5 is my preference too. I think ES6 would be interesting because the code would look a bit closer to AS3, but with the polyfills and the implementations in browsers being pretty new still, I'm wary of adopting it at this point in time.
- Josh On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/28/15, 10:08 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Btw, I would like to come back on this: > > > >> 1) figure out when to load the polyfill > > > >For ES6: All the time at the moment > > > >> 2) worry about bugs in the polyfill > > > >I guess like any other thirdparty we are using and those polyfills we are > >talking about are open source, it means as well there are people to > >maintain and fix them until ES6 is supported by the browser. > > > >> 3) have different debug experiences in different browsers > > > >I'm mot sure that's a problem, if a dev needs to debug at this level, > >they should rely on 2, othewise they would debug in ES6, which is more > >comfortable ? > > > >> 4) bundle the polyfills in the release > > > >Not sure, I guess they could be loaded directly from their github > >location. > > > >> 5) manage the licenses and other documentation around the polyfills. > > > >Indeed and I'm not good with that. > > > >Did I miss something ? > > Nope, those sound like the right answer, but it sounds like more work than > just staying with ES5. So ES5 would be my preference, but I’ll go with > the majority. > > Regarding the debug experience: the more runtime configurations you have > to support, the more time you will spend investigating those bugs where it > works for you but not for the bug filer. Odds are you’ll end up stepping > into the polyfill to see if it is the reason. Again, if there is enough > pay-off for moving to ES6 great, but otherwise, that’s just more work for > us. > > -Alex > >
