Languages have warts, not just JS. No cleanup is perfect, and more warts come over time. If your point is merely about a "language you hate" but must perforce use on the Web, I think you should be happy right now. The solution is not to hate JS. It's not going to change incompatibly. Rather, you can use linters, "transpilers", compilers, voluntary unchecked subsets -- all possible today.
If you then object to having to use a tool or a subsetting discipline, I'm not sure what to say. The `with` statement is not forcing you to use it. Avoid it! If you are concerned with the "painting into the corner" problem for engine implementors, the big ones are all in the room here and they can cope. If you are concerned about JS pedagogy or marketing, the solution already practiced is to subset. Just as when teaching English or another evolved, irregularity-ridden living language. /be On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:06 PM Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Those languages forked and some modernized (I remember Fortran 77). Those >> are all quite a bit older than JS. I would also suggest they are for the >> most part stunning successes. We've learned a lot from them. >> > > Yes, but we'll also want people to *want* to use a language. Not just use > it because eons ago something has been written in them and now there is no > way out. JS has to keep pace or it will end up like those languages, some > relic from the past that nobody uses if they can possibly avoid it. I don't > think the mission brief of JS can be "The best language you hate using but > can't avoid using anyway." >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
