Massive +1 on Jordan's call for increased civility and cleaner language. On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Vinnymac <vinny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Above Steve mentions that many people are mixing language additions > with framework fatigue. I have to agree with him. In my case I am not > overwhelmed by any of the additions TC39 has chosen to make to ECMA. Absolutely. Framework fatigue? Yes. Language change fatigue? Not at all. The opposite, if anything -- eagerness to get to using the new stuff. > I don't think TC39 should need to babysit or have a special line of > communication with any specific libraries. Smells of lobbying and politics. Yes indeed. Similarly: On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > TBH, I'd love to have an official review channel for hacky practices used on > frameworks, no matter how big is their company size, and flag officially as > TC39 friendly. Same problem (lobbying and politics), as well as scope creep (that's not their job) and limited resources (I'd rather they spent their TC39 time on the main mission: moving the language foward). On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote (replying to kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com>): > > tc39 should be a bit more [expletive deleted] imo. > > No it shouldn't, it should be open minded and able to listen too. Amen. > However, when TC39 makes a decision the JS community follows quite > religiously that decision. > > If TC39 says everything is fine, you have today situation you describe. I haven't seen any indiction from TC39 that using Stage 1 proposals in production is "fine." > If TC39 would give some little extra direction, you'd have people thinking > about what they're using daily, example: > > statement: TC39 considers Stage 1 unstable and it should never be used on > production. > > result: people using early transpilers cannot complain about anything about > it and it's their choice. > > statement: TC39 consider the usage of `eval` inappropriate for production > > result: people using any library fully based on eval or Function would start > looking for better options I wouldn't have thought such statements were required, given the way the stages are described in the [process document](https://tc39.github.io/process-document/). Reading through that, if you're relying on anything that isn't at least at Stage 4 or *well* into Stage 3, you should know that it could change significantly or go away entirely, and be prepared for that. Caveat usor. But sure, perhaps a "guidelines for use in production" section would be useful. The people who are relying on Stage 1 stuff presumably haven't read the process document anyway and so won't see the guidelines, but having them there makes it easier for people to point out to them the dangers (or at least, considerations) of what they're doing, backed by a link to the document. E.g., that if they want to use X, that's their choice, but they should be aware they'll probably have to refactor at some point, perhaps repeatedly, as it evolves into something stable. -- T.J. Crowder _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
