On 12/4/06, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/4/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm arguing that a future language change could conflict with an > > enhancement in Prototype. > > Future changes that modify public APIs in JavaScript will break any other > code as well as Prototype's.
I think the point is that being conservative and keeping to a namespace will reduce the chance of broken scripts when the JavaScript API is expanded. > You're talking about 6-7 years from now - > imagine what browsers will look like then? You will have Firefox 6, Opera > 12, Safari 4, IE 7.1 :-) > I don't approve the usage of the term "hacking" when using a natural feature > of the language. If programming hacking is something that exists then it occurs within a language. To execute it must use the natural features of the language. So hacking uses the natural features of the language. > If we could "subclass" Array, Object, Date and others > things would be different - unfortunately subclassing built-in types is a > pain (Dean Edwards' blog). Therefore we're stuck with built-in types - at > least we can enrich their APIs. You can but it may not be pragmatic/prudent/wise knowing the language API will expand. This is similar to extending Object.prototype which will likely break other code. JavaScript lets you shoot yourself in the foot constently. Programmer discipline is required. Peter -------- http://forkjavascript.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
