With regards to breaking old code, even breaking 0.001% of sites is far too many for JS. Believe it or not, for similar reasons, __proto__ was un-deprecated and standardized. And `contains` was changed to `includes`, because a library popular in the past broke, and a significant number of their users don't keep their version up to date.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 09:58 Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/10/15 7:41 AM, Ethan Resnick wrote: > > And how long until they could remove support for the rest of the > > language altogether? > > This makes the fundamental assumption that it's OK to break old things > just because they're old. To the extent that the web is used for > applications, this is probably OK, but for documents this is really a > bad approach because we (well at least some of us) want those to > continue to be readable as the web evolves. Otherwise we end up with a > "dark ages" later on where things that appeared in print continue to be > readable while later digital stuff, even if still available, is not. > > And in this case "documents" includes things like interactive New York > Times stuff and whatnot... > > -Boris > _______________________________________________ > 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
