I'm a huge fan of that too -- you know I don't like compilers as the answer -- but that approach always comes with limits; and that's OK. What we add to the spec lives forever; not just through the transition. We owe it to ourselves and our users to introduce the least crazy we can while still solving the most pressing problems; and to do it with an eye toward living in the future were specing. Caller doesn't pass this smell test. On Nov 16, 2012 4:55 PM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still a big fun of what made JS easy to use, develop, learn since > born ... the ability to include a script in a HTML page and run it without > being forced of using different tools in the middle before results or even > requiring a web server at all. > > I remember once I've read that scripting was cool 'cause no time wasted > compiling ... those days are gone in modern JS development. > > br > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Alex Russell <a...@dojotoolkit.org>wrote: > >> On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > "use strict" is removed from code by default ... this is where it goes >> once >> > minified: nowhere. >> > >> > I would rather force a minifier explicitly to remove it rather than >> force >> > it to keep it for ES5 ... also ES5 is not use strict so I don't get this >> > Closure Compiler choice. >> > >> > I don't see minified code with "use strict" that often >> >> All this suggests is that we need to improve the state of play in tools. >> Sounds doable. >> >> That said, you've gotten good answers that you don't like. It happens, >> and it's better than not getting an answer or getting a bad one. >> >> The polyfill you're working on can be accomplished other ways ( >> http://code.google.com/p/traceur-compiler/). There's always a tax for >> emulating the new thing with the old, and this case that's caller. More to >> the point, it's a polyfill; once ES6 lands in engines, class syntax will >> give you super() for free, complete with whatever optimizations make sense. >> >> If you have performance issues, I recommend what everyone else here has: >> write benchmarks and file bugs. Beyond that, I think this horse is both >> dead and beaten. >> >> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> >> >> >>> Said that, I would rather force removal of "use strict" 'cause if >> there >> >>> is explicit desire from the developer. Isn't it? >> >>> >> >> >> >> What do you mean? "use strict" is not going away. It is used by some >> >> developers. I had a show of hands at JSConf.au, definitely a minority >> but >> >> significant. >> >> >> >> You are barking up the wrong tree. And Angus's abuses of 'with' are >> >> unjustified. Yes, "be water". Yes, masters may break rules students >> must >> >> follow. None of that philosophizing justifies 'with' abusage or >> >> repealing/undoing "use strict". >> >> >> >> /be >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > es-discuss mailing list >> > es-discuss@mozilla.org >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> -- >> Alex Russell >> slightly...@google.com >> slightly...@chromium.org >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
