Right.
David, I thought I had you convinced at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg21480.html
/be
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
