Re: Es4-discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 44
As far as I can see it, there are a couple of non-technical issues here that have to be resolved, but they all boil down to who is willing to implement what. Is there truly no way to compromise? MS says that they think ES4 deserves to a be a new language. Suppose that is true and ES4 is renamed, say ES++. Then would MS be willing to implementing ES++ in their new browser? Or is the name truly a scapegoat to blame their misgivings of ES4 the language itself? Or if you consider the feature set of ES4 to be too bloated, that ES4 is trying to tackle problems it was never meant to handle, what exactly do you dislike about ES4? What features would do you want to cut out of the language? What features would the pro-ES4 people be willing to cut out? I know this will be hard, but let's ignore feature dependencies for the moment. Say, for example, that you dislike the class system but are fine with the type system (as nonsensical as that sounds). Perhaps you're fine with grafting a type system on top of the prototype system without classes. Or if you also dislike the type system, what do you propose instead? For encapsulation, you might propose sticking with closures. Now, how are you going to address the pitfalls of closures, namely memory usage and inefficiency? ES4 advocates may also be concerned that encapsulation via closures is plain ugly, while ES4 critics say that classes make the language inelegant. Perhaps there is another solution? Anyway, do you see where I'm getting with this? There should be some room for compromise. I'd like to see some active discussion concerning these feature disagreements. Lastly, all this accusations concerning intentions need to stop. Mozilla, this concerns you too - I find that saying you won't let big bully MS block ES4 is somewhat hypocritical, considering that the SVG 1.2 committee did something similar to you guys (make no mistake, I'm not accusing anyone and I hope this is the last time SVG is mentioned on this mailing list). In any case, hypocritical or not, all these accusations are not constructive at all. Responding to accusations with more accusations is plain sophomoric in my book. Please, I have enough of my political bullshit from the news - I don't expect that here. Thanks, Yuh-Ruey Chen ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Re: Es4-discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 44
On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote: Lastly, all this accusations concerning intentions need to stop. In the absence of technical arguments, these are inevitable. Mozilla, this concerns you too - I find that saying you won't let big bully MS block ES4 is somewhat hypocritical, considering that the SVG 1.2 committee did something similar to you guys (make no mistake, I'm not accusing anyone and I hope this is the last time SVG is mentioned on this mailing list). If you mean SVG Tiny 1.2 violating W3C process rules by skipping from Working Draft to Candidate Recommendation without addressing all received technical objections, there's no comparison. We working on ES4 could use some specific technical objections from the Ecma members who oppose ES4. I promise we wouldn't ignore any before moving ES4 to the final stage of Ecma standardization (there is no CR analogue in Ecma). Hey, you brought this up -- no fair doing a drive-by about SVG while I'm in earshot! :-) In any case, hypocritical or not, all these accusations are not constructive at all. Responding to accusations with more accusations is plain sophomoric in my book. Please, I have enough of my political bullshit from the news - I don't expect that here. If these are inevitable because technical objections haven't been made, that tells you something important. The politics are overriding technical considerations. Act accordingly, but please, don't assume there is a technical fix to a political problem. Forcing one by a bartering process will only make a Franken-standard. /be ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Re: Es4-discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 44
Doug, Yes, I think the time has come to table the ES3+ materials. It has been discussed on and off since April. Do you have something that describes this proposal in a material way? How can people evaluate ES4 vs ES3+ if ES3+ is unknown and unspecified? Michael Yehuda Katz wrote: Doug, What specifically would you do in ES3+ to improve this situation? -- Yehuda On 10/30/07, Douglas Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brenden is also correct:If the working group voted and the current proposal won - it is better to have a stronger, more secure language. Sure they can argue it is bloated, but SO WHAT? The proposal is not a more secure language. It does nothing to address ECMAScript's biggestdesign flaw: the insecurity caused its dependence on a global object. XSS attacks are a direct consequence of this flaw. By making the language more complex, this problem becomes even harder to reason about and fix. I have been bringing this up since my first day in the working group. This is not a concern that is being sprung at the last minute. The working group hasn't voted. The proposal has not won. We have agreed to disagree, developing two competing proposals in the same working group. I am pursuing with Microsoft a counter proposal for a simpler, reliable remedy to real problems. My position isn't that _javascript_ doesn't need fixing. I think we need to be more selective in how we fix it. Bloat, in my view, is not good design. ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss -- Yehuda Katz Web Developer | Procore Technologies (ph)718.877.1325 ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
