> > Well, not quite. The choice is between treating 'new Object' specially or > not. If it's not treated specially there is no new scary type. It's just > that`new Object` might not have the properties one might hope for (but again, > those same properties would be lost as soon as you touch the result of the > expression).
OK, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that “new Object()” is not so much a language _feature_, as much as an accidental convention that people have settled on for accomplishing a very specific thing. In a way, it’s like the so-called-but-not-really-a-feature double-brace idiom; it’s an accidental consequence of how the language works, that people have come to use because it’s convenient. I would much rather spend our complexity budget migrating uses of this idiom away and get a simpler type system, than the other way around.
