I would just like to give my 2 cents.
I would like some sort of iterative ordering, but not on Objects. The
reasons have been stated before that iterative ordering is less
optimal for performance than random access (or semi-random). However,
it has its uses, perhaps it would be more suitable to pu
On 3/11/2011 3:58 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 03/11/2011 02:07 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
Your perspective is common in a group like this - very spec and standard
focused. Isn't it
fun to bash those developers? Everyone's doing it.. I hope you realize it's
irrelevant though?
Insinuating bad f
On 03/11/2011 02:07 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
Your perspective is common in a group like this - very spec and standard
focused. Isn't it fun to bash those developers? Everyone's doing it.. I hope
you realize it's irrelevant though?
Insinuating bad faith ("Isn't it fun" and "Everyone's doing
On 2011-03-11, at 18:40, Charles Kendrick wrote:
>> "These developers" didn't take a "calculated risk". They saw it worked
>> with the implementations at the time and hoped it would be so in the
>> future.
>
> That is precisely the calculated risk they took.
FWIW, OpenLaszlo does not take that r
On 3/11/2011 3:13 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Have you reported an issue to Microsoft Connect (or their bug reporting
platform, I do not remember the exact name)?
I will report it the second that I can link to, say, an email from Brendan Eich replying to 2
other heavies saying yeah, we're agreed E
Le 11/03/2011 23:07, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
> On 3/11/2011 1:33 PM, David Bruant wrote:
>> Le 11/03/2011 21:49, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
>>> Yes Allen, hence the urgency. If IE9 final ships that way, the "goose
>>> is cooked":
>> Let's face it right now: IE9 will ship that way. They're on RC
2011/3/11 David Bruant :
> Le 11/03/2011 21:49, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
>> Yes Allen, hence the urgency. If IE9 final ships that way, the "goose
>> is cooked":
> Let's face it right now: IE9 will ship that way. They're on RC phase,
> it's completely irrealistic to consider they would change obj
On 3/11/2011 1:33 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 11/03/2011 21:49, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
Yes Allen, hence the urgency. If IE9 final ships that way, the "goose
is cooked":
Let's face it right now: IE9 will ship that way. They're on RC phase,
it's completely irrealistic to consider they would c
Le 11/03/2011 21:49, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
> Yes Allen, hence the urgency. If IE9 final ships that way, the "goose
> is cooked":
Let's face it right now: IE9 will ship that way. They're on RC phase,
it's completely irrealistic to consider they would change object
implementation.
>From the spe
Probably the language which most commonly handles JSON is JavaScript itself. So a major chunk
of the benefit, possibly even the majority of the benefit, would be immediate: eval(),
application config files expressed in JSON, etc.
And as you alluded to (also I CAN HAZ CUSTIM CLAZZES?) JSON will
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
> Not so - order-preserving implementations are backwards compatible with
> non-order-preserving implementations. Just rev the spec, and like any other
> versioned spec, developers can use the new behavior when they know the
> application e
Yes Allen, hence the urgency. If IE9 final ships that way, the "goose is
cooked":
1. we will have a new de facto standard iteration order for Object that does not match any
known use case - it is purely an implementation detail leaking through
2. the majority of real-world applications will
Not so - order-preserving implementations are backwards compatible with non-order-preserving
implementations. Just rev the spec, and like any other versioned spec, developers can use the
new behavior when they know the application environment uses only the new version.
On 3/11/2011 12:41 PM, D
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
> On 3/10/2011 7:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/11 9:58 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
>>
>>> 1. tens of thousands of web applications that need to define a sorted
>>> map plus perhaps billions of JSON messages per day
>>>
>>> .. to .
On 3/10/2011 7:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/10/11 9:58 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
1. tens of thousands of web applications that need to define a sorted
map plus perhaps billions of JSON messages per day
.. to ..
2. a handful of crypto / computational use cases used by a tiny minority
of s
Hi John, you seem to be rephrasing your case without addressing my
counterpoints.
So again the problem with the analogy to C is that permanently changing the definition of C so
that "int" is 16 bits would damage the language, my proposal would not.
Further, I have argued in detail that it imp
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
> Hello John, I'll assume you meant this as humor since the analogy has such
> obvious flaws.
>
> Having a default strategy on Object of maintaining order obviously does not
> preclude other strategies, nor does it damage the JavaScript lang
Hello John, I'll assume you meant this as humor since the analogy has such
obvious flaws.
Having a default strategy on Object of maintaining order obviously does not preclude other
strategies, nor does it damage the JavaScript language itself, as locking int to 16 bits would
obviously have dam
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Charles Kendrick
wrote:
> However as far as the default strategy, the highest value thing to do seems
> to me to impose the de-facto standard of 15 years - insertion order - which
> is a very useful behavior and will avoid thousands of websites having to
> compens
On Mar 10, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Charles Kendrick wrote:
> This behavior was perfectly consistent across all browsers until Chrome 6. I
> think it's more appropriate to say that Chrome is not interoperable with
> thousands of sites than to define interoperable behavior based on a minority
> browse
On 3/11/2011 2:39 AM, David Bruant wrote:
Le 11/03/2011 00:48, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
== Expressiveness and Performance argument
A very common use case where order preservation is desirable is
providing the set of options
for a drop-down list in JavaScript.
...
This is one (very valid, in
Le 11/03/2011 17:13, John Lenz a écrit :
> This whole discussion makes reminds me how much JavaScript needs
> proper collections. People use "Object" but they don't really want
> Object (where prototype properties leak into data, where they String
> is the only key type, where the strings "1.0" an
This whole discussion makes reminds me how much JavaScript needs proper
collections. People use "Object" but they don't really want Object (where
prototype properties leak into data, where they String is the only key type,
where the strings "1.0" and "1" can not be represented in the same map, etc
On 3/11/2011 7:35 AM, Wes Garland wrote:
Someone -- Mark Miller? -- suggested an interesting option when this discussion
came up last on
this list (around Christmas 2010 IIRC). Basically -- enumerate named props in
insertion order,
and numeric props in numeric. This gets pretty close to what
On 3/11/2011 7:07 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I believe it is very very important that the ECMAScript standard specify that
when a new
Object is created, for..in iteration traverses properties in the order they are
added,
regardless of whether the properties are numeric or not.
Some users might p
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
> I believe it is very very important that the ECMAScript standard specify
>> that when a new Object is created, for..in iteration traverses properties in
>> the order they are added, regardless of whether the properties are numeric
>> or not.
I believe it is very very important that the ECMAScript standard
specify that when a new Object is created, for..in iteration traverses
properties in the order they are added, regardless of whether the
properties are numeric or not.
Some users might prefer 'in the order of keys'. That is predi
Le 11/03/2011 00:48, Charles Kendrick a écrit :
> I believe it is very very important that the ECMAScript standard
> specify that when a new Object
> is created, for..in iteration traverses properties in the order they
> are added, regardless of whether the properties are numeric or not.
(...)
> ==
2011/3/11 Charles Kendrick :
> All browsers that have ever had non-negligible market share have implemented
> order-preserving
> Objects - until Chrome 6.
Just to be clear: Chrome 5 and before had a for-in ordering that
revealed internal optimization strategies. From Chrome 6 and forward
the beh
29 matches
Mail list logo
