I oppose moderation. These views about ES, however misguided they might seem, allow us to reaffirm the reasons why decisions were made and guide those with similar views to the answers to their concerns. I don't see any loss, only gain, in engaging these concerns.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 13:46 James Kyle <m...@thejameskyle.com> wrote: > I don't understand what this thread is even trying to achieve. > > This mailing list should really just be shut down. The lack of moderation > ruins it and it sucks having to subscribe to it for the occasional > important/interesting information/discussion. I'd rather have that content > moved to one of the other channels of communication which have been more > successful. > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 6:51 pm, T.J. Crowder < > tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:40 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > if i were asked what the vision of javascript is my current >> > answer would be: >> > "javascript is a tool to take JSON-input, manipulate it, and >> > output it back out (via DOM, event-handling, network-socket, >> > file-io, or db-driver)." >> >> You mean, it's a tool to write computer instructions for taking input, >> manipulating it, and generating output? Breaking news: That's what all >> programming languages are. >> >> If you mean *specifically* JSON, and *specifically* a DOM, and >> *specifically* network I/O and DBs and...well, sorry; as you've been >> repeatedly told, *your* vision is at odds with that of the JavaScript >> community at large and, I believe, of the committee. JavaScript is bigger >> than that. Cope. Because I don't see that changing. Harping on about that >> conflict on this list is simply not useful. >> >> > es5 was the epitomy of achieving that vision in the simplest way >> possible. >> >> Great. Again: Keep using it. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else. The >> committee have done a *huge* amount of work to maintain backward >> compatibility. (Speaking of which: In all the harping, I don't recall >> hearing a thing from you *appreciating* that hard work from the committee. >> Did I just miss it?) Yes, it's 99.99999999% instead of 100%, and code >> written assuming nothing would ever change (say, values from `typeof`) was >> ever-so-slightly impacted. Well, that's unfortunate, but it's very much an >> exception to the rule of compatibility, the decision was not made lightly >> or without research on impact, and it's not like it takes any significant >> time to fix the code in question. Rather less time than complaining about >> it on the list, in fact. >> >> You have a different view from most reasonably-informed people on this. >> You're entitled to it. As a reasonably-informed person, you're entitled to >> express it, and you have. It's time to move on. >> >> -- 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
