On May 14, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:06, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <allen.wirfs-br...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> What's your use case for a variable length ArrayBuffer? > > I'm happy with fixed length array buffer but exceptions rubs me the > wrong way. Consistence with Array leads to less surprises which leads > to less bugs. > >> These are the sorts of trade-offs that library writers should be making. >> They can decided if it is more appropriate to build an abstraction that that >> grows by copying (probably best for infrequent growth and lots of iterative >> operations) or grows by segmentation (probably better for frequent growth >> with minimal iteration). They can even include both in a library. >> >> The core language should be providing the primitive that enable this sort of >> library design while minimizing low level overhead. From that perspective I >> think a fixed size ArrayBuffer is exactly what is needed. However, it is >> also important that efficient copying is supported, possibly via a >> ArrayBuffer constructer alternative. > > I agree that we need to provide the missing primitives, however; > > If we only provide the primitives usability will suffer. > > If we only provide primitives all js libraries will have to > reimplement a usable abstraction layer. This is leads to more code > which leads to higher latency and slower application.
+1. What Erik said. -- Alex Russell slightly...@google.com a...@dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
