On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:34 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 27/03/2013 00:22, Kevin Gadd a écrit : > >> OK, it seems like Weak References are now being discussed without the >> context of previous discussions of weak references, which is a little >> annoying. Non-contrived real-world use cases that require Weak References >> (or a primitive with similar capabilities, like a Map with weak values >> instead of weak keys, I'm not picky) have already been provided *on this >> list* the last time WRs were discussed. I provided two based on real >> applications I've worked on; I thought other people in the discussion thread >> provided more. > > I've been through the thread and I haven't read any use case that *requires* > Weak References. Only use cases where they make life easier to various > degrees. It's been agreed that in most cases, adding an explicit .dispose() > or equivalent protocol could work too.
Using `.dispose()` is manual management of the allocation and deallocation of object. Manual memory management is fundamentally non-modular -- you can't encapsulate it in a library, and it requires describing memory management behavior in all your function specifications, the way that C libraries do. It's certainly possible to write large, complex apps in C. But that's not evidence that we should bring those practices to JS. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
