You can find lots of information about design discussions by reading the ecmascript wiki, for example: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies. The other good resource is the past posts to this list and the meeting minutes, http://esdiscuss.org/.
In general, the content that is painstakingly written down in the ES6 specification has been designed and discussed in great detail. The appropriate level of comments on those features needs to be equally detailed and thoughtful. Random comments about how you personally don't like some aspects of the design are better directed to your followers on twitter or perhaps a blog post. And of course you are free not to use any new features you dislike. I believe that is what Alex was attempting to communicate. jjb On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM, L2L 2L <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Anyone care to justify the use case for the proxy object? > > Yes I understand it'll let us defined the behavior of an object. But > couldn't that be a method for the Object constructor? > > E-S4L > N-S4L > > On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:55 PM, "L2L 2L" <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Huh? ... Should I be doing so? ... Huh? > > E-S4L > N-S4L > > On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:54 PM, "Alex Russell" <slightly...@google.com> wrote: > > Is there seriously going to be no attempt whatsoever to moderate this list? > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:42 AM, L2L 2L <emanuelal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ... This language is turning note in an application than a programming >> language. >> >> It could of been a commonjs thing... Long live ES5+. >> >> I like the let, and const syntax add on. Foo feature and fits into the >> language. >> >> Yes ai agree they should release as CSS is releasing. >> >> E-S4L >> N-S4L >> >> > On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:36 AM, "Herby Vojčík" <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > L2L 2L wrote: >> >> It worry me... That a community is writing the spec... That a community >> > >> > Well, not the community is writing the spec. AWB is. :-) >> > And he can be pretty tough, I more or less stopped reading this list >> thoroughly after his letting one of the issues I saw as important left >> ignored. >> > >> > Nevertheless: >> > >> >> is writing the spec.... Look like W3C... That everyone is striving to >> >> get what they want in the language. >> >> >> >> Most of us are ES5 developers.... Meaning we don't delve into ES6 and >> >> what else to come. >> >> >> >> let, const, and a couple of others spec implantation is okay. These >> help >> >> better the language... But your adding feature and no trying to better >> >> what's already there. >> >> >> >> You might as well call yourself W3C equivalent.E >> >> >> >> As long as one can write compliant ES5. >> >> >> >> A new more stricture spec/style is being made. It's call ES5+ meaning >> >> that all compliant code is to be writing in ES5 and additional add on >> as >> >> the let and const statement plus other +. >> >> >> >> What I see is more functionality of the browser api then an actually >> >> language. A lot of us hope this spec die, as did ES4. >> >> >> >> Most of what you're adding could have been another add on spec... Like >> >> commonjs add on. >> > >> > I liked the idea of ES6 pretty much. The commitee was pretty strict in >> not adding too much, mostly paving cowpaths, had some roadmap, according to >> which ES6 should be approved in end of 2013. >> > >> > Now is second half of 2014, and lots of issues are not closed yet, from >> what I see. >> > >> > I got delusioned as well. >> > >> > Isn't the model of big new editions of spec over; in the times we live >> now, with two-week frequent releases? I think ES6 will never see the light >> when taken from this approach. That's why, shouldn't the release policy be >> changed so that: >> > >> > - More frequent, albeit smaller, releases are embraced as a rule; >> > - ES5.5 will be scheduled (and delivered) as a Christmas present in >> 2014, selecting only small subset of less controversial items (let, const, >> Reflect global object with all API applicable to ES5.5, possibly block >> scope; no modules, no classes (unless there is consensus they are already >> near to perfect, though my issue was about new/super inconsistency), no >> symbols, no proxies, no for-of, iterators, generators, comprehensions, no >> promises); >> > - schedule ES5.6 (and deliver it) for July 2015 with, for example, >> for-of, iterators, generators, comprehensions (it's all related, so in a >> single set) and if possible, classes and/or promises; >> > ... etc. >> > Possibly switching to 6 when something big gets in (symbols, classes, >> proxies). >> > >> > This would be nice. Really nice. To all of us who want to get ES.next >> and actually start developing in it. >> > >> > Thanks, Herby >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
