Removing things also frees up syntax and names for future extensions. Never removing features is simply unscalable, and it's only going to accelerate JS's demise!
I still think version pragmas are probably worth exploring to mitigate this, while not 'breaking the web' is a stated goal. Alex On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 at 07:53, T.J. Crowder <tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Michael Kriegel < > michael.krie...@actifsource.com> wrote: > >> Maybe ES should introduce something like a configuration object, in which >> developers can enable / disable or in general configure features for their >> module in a fine granular way. Of course all features which exist at the >> time of introducing such a mechanism would have to be enabled by default... >> > As you say, this is more a job for linters / code analysis / code quality > tools. The only time it's relevant to the JavaScript engine itself is where > the elimination of a feature allows the engine to do a better/faster > optimization job (for instance in strict mode, `with`, the link between > `arguments` and named parameters, ...) or where only the engine can know > about something problematic (viz. automatic globals). Those are relatively > rare. > > I can't recall details, but I seem to recall an indication on the list at > some stage that there's little-to-no appetite for further `"use > strict"`-like directives. It's a big hammer, used once so far to fix some > long-standing performance and correctness pain-points. Maybe TC-39 will use > it again, but the indication was, not any time soon, and certainly not just > to turn off features people don't like. > > -- T.J. Crowder > _______________________________________________ > 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
