5 ms·
This seems...absurd, from the conversation linked: Question: "Does this mean that today I can create a new (non existing in the native spec) method, add it in
by stevemk14ebr 9y ago
This seems...absurd, from the conversation linked:
Question: "Does this mean that today I can create a new (non existing in the native spec) method, add it in the native object, using it in a certain percentage of websites and force TC39 to change it's future implementation thus essentially hijacking the language evolution process?"
Response: "What that means is that yes, you can create a new nonexistent method, use it in a certain percentage of websites, and actively destroy any proposal trying to add that method name. I hope you don't do that, because that would be pretty sociopathic, but that's absolutely how the process works, and will continue to work for the foreseeable future.
We've made tons of progress with this constraint, and we'll continue to make progress with it."
That does not seem like a sensible constraint for language design. Just say the method name is reserved for goodness sake, you are the ONLY people who get to exercise that power.
- olliej 9y agoThey’re correct - if you make a library that is popular enough, and it has (and depends on) some absurd addition to a native object it effectively blocks using that name on the object. It becomes bad when the library checks for an existing implementation of that function, and then assumes compatible semantics
- colept 9y agoI disagree and actually like it in principle. Languages of any kind change, and this to me feels just like spoken language change. If enough people establish convention - why break it? A proposal that goes against convention is already under such scrutiny. I don't believe "smoosh" in this case is any better than "flatten" but I agree with the motivation and that's far more important than one function name.
- eridius 9y agoExcept they don't have this power at all. If they try and declare a language addition that breaks a non-trivial number of websites, browsers will refuse to implement it. Anything this committee specs out only matters if it's actually implemented. Browsers care very strongly about not breaking websites, so the language committee must as well.
- resonantjacket5 9y agolol there's only like 7000 websites that use it. Should we go release 8000 websites with smooshMap and stop them from using it?
- eridius 9y agoThis very question was already addressed multiple times on the comment thread, and the answer is yes, that would stop them from using it, and it would also be a real dick move.
- resonantjacket5 9y agoThey've already overriden mootools in the past for breaking changes such as Event, bind, etc. I don't see why they can't do it again
- nemothekid 9y agoI don't see how its absurd. The alternative is you break tons of websites - even worse the user isn't likely to know why, seeing as chrome would auto-update and their sites are broken
- rektide 9y agoyou're quoting ljharb's hardlining. ljharb is a sociopath. he's playing policeman & bossing people around on some power trip. he thinks he gets to play the savior of the web & plays all high & mighty & snaps at any one who doesn't fall into line.
- marksomnian 9y agoRelevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551272