3 ms·

The big problem is the incentive structure. TC39 can't introduce breaking changes because browsers won't implement breaking changes. Browsers won't implement

by Zarel 8y ago

The big problem is the incentive structure. TC39 can't introduce breaking changes because browsers won't implement breaking changes. Browsers won't implement breaking changes because users would switch to other browsers which don't implement breaking changes. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, if a website works in one browser but not in another, users are going to use the browser it works in.

dbbk 8y ago
This is not true, browsers have removed language features before, typically for security reasons.
- jgraham 8y ago
  It is true that very occasionally features are removed from the web platform. It is also true that the incentive structures that exist hugely favour not removing features or otherwise breaking existing content. For a feature to be removed there needs to either be an incredibly compelling reason (e.g. a security problem), preferably so obvious and widely agreed on that vendors are able to make simultaneous releases containing the change in order to mitigate the effect on the competitive landscape, or there needs to be a negligible measured usage of the feature. The latter is most usually the case when the feature was never widely implemented in the first place e.g. some (but not all) vendor extensions. If it were easy to remove unpleasant features from the platform, browser vendors would be the first people clamouring to make it happen. For example, off the top of my head, there is widespread agreement that it would be good to get rid of, or otherwise improve in backwards-incompatible ways: * Sync XHR * document.open * document.write * AppCache * localStorage But that can't happen, because the desire of browser implementors to simplify their implementation is less important than the need to keep sites running. Apart from anything else, as stated uptrehad, breaking sites is a sure and certain way to get people to switch to a different browser.
- olavk 8y ago
  Yes, but security is also the only reason users would accept losing access to certain websites - and then only grudgingly! Tell a regular browser user they will lose access to their favorite website forever because JavaScript developers prefer writing "flatten" to "flat".

by Zarel 8y ago

dbbk 8y ago

This is not true, browsers have removed language features before, typically for security reasons.

jgraham 8y ago
It is true that very occasionally features are removed from the web platform. It is also true that the incentive structures that exist hugely favour not removing features or otherwise breaking existing content. For a feature to be removed there needs to either be an incredibly compelling reason (e.g. a security problem), preferably so obvious and widely agreed on that vendors are able to make simultaneous releases containing the change in order to mitigate the effect on the competitive landscape, or there needs to be a negligible measured usage of the feature. The latter is most usually the case when the feature was never widely implemented in the first place e.g. some (but not all) vendor extensions. If it were easy to remove unpleasant features from the platform, browser vendors would be the first people clamouring to make it happen. For example, off the top of my head, there is widespread agreement that it would be good to get rid of, or otherwise improve in backwards-incompatible ways: * Sync XHR * document.open * document.write * AppCache * localStorage But that can't happen, because the desire of browser implementors to simplify their implementation is less important than the need to keep sites running. Apart from anything else, as stated uptrehad, breaking sites is a sure and certain way to get people to switch to a different browser.
olavk 8y ago
Yes, but security is also the only reason users would accept losing access to certain websites - and then only grudgingly! Tell a regular browser user they will lose access to their favorite website forever because JavaScript developers prefer writing "flatten" to "flat".