Le 16/08/2012 01:31, Brendan Eich a écrit : > David Bruant wrote: >> Le 16/08/2012 00:35, Rick Waldron a écrit : >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Erik Reppen <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Is consistent type return a heuristic carried over from more >>> strictly-typed paradigms or would it murder performance of the >>> native methods to do the logic required to return something like >>> null in these cases? In a dynamic language, why not focus on more >>> consistent return types across the board for an indicator that >>> you won't be getting particularly handy results? >>> >>> >>> It would break the web. >> I agree and would like to encourage you (Erik) to read the foreword >> of my "ECMAScript regrets" project >> https://github.com/DavidBruant/ECMAScript-regrets#foreword >> >> The only way forward to "fix" broken parts of JavaScript (like making >> it more consistent) is to give up on JavaScript and create a new >> language that compiles down to JavaScript. That's my opinion at least. > > There's another way: extend JS with fixed forms and hope the broken > ones die eventually. I agree, but "hope" hasn't given the web a lot so far unfortunately.
Also, it should work fine for syntax, but built-in libraries (like what Erik wants to see fixed) seem to be a different story. For instance, Number.isNaN is a fixed form, but I'm not sure it'll be enough to see isNaN die. > Both compile-to-JS and evolve-JS-to-be-better are happening, and the > former informs the latter directly (=> and for-of from CoffeeScript > are in ES6, e.g.). Both should, since JS is at this point a huge > public good, like it or not. I could not agree more. David _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
