On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:00 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Why impose unnecessary work on someone trying to use strict?
I repeat, not even checking that code still parses after adding
"use strict;" is obviously silly, and we should not claim that strict
mode is usable without doing that -- whether or not it does semicolon
insertion. In other words, the work is necessary.
It's more than just making sure the file parses correctly -- it's
adding the semicolons too. Are you assuming that most programs will
parse correctly without semicolon insertion?
Foo.prototype.bar = function() {
//...
} // <-- whoops, no semicolon
For me that qualifies as "unnecessary work," aka "pedantic." YMMV.
I don't think it's right to ask "what are the reasons someone wouldn't
migrate to strict mode?" Non-migration is the de-facto "winning"
position. The real question is, "why would someone bother to
migrate?" If you have fully functional code, why spend *any* time
modifying it, introducing risk, while delaying other work? This lies
at the heart of Brendan's concerns about migration tax. *Any* tax is
going to inhibit migration.
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
