3 ms·

I didn't say that the algorithm was trivial, just that the object was. `{ foo: () => {} }` is a fairly trivial object, all things considered.

by johnfn 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
It's not an object. JSON wouldn't cover that. It's code. With code complexity. That's non trivial & you seem to double down on an extensive ask far beyond .odt people's & what the typical need is, in a way that belittles the effort. I don't like how short you are, how you phrase this as some huge weakness. When in fact JSON.stringify/parse - what everyone uses today - have the same object-but-not-code limitations.
- baq 3y ago
  Functions are first-class objects though…? What’s json got to do with cloning objects except its prevalence as a limited workaround?
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    It's not just an object though. It's an object that has potentially has implicit bindings to something in the rest of the runtime. Bindings that (to my lament) aren't visible in the first clas-object; secret hidden internal state, tying it to the rest of the runtime. JSON defines what is possible to do that doesn't involve arbitrary bindings to the rest of the runtime. Short of serializing the world, JSON is the best we can do. It would be possible to try to serialize, and maybe a function is simple enough to serialize. Do we have existing examples of this? There's hundreds of different serialization libraries. For some reason everyone in this thread is super ignoring what seems like a basic widespread limitation, is being condescending to structuredClone, for not doing what no one else does either. Because there's a very good reason: because here be dragons. I don't get why everyone is so combative & aggressive over what seems so clear.
- johnfn 3y ago
  Why are you talking about JSON? This was a discussion about structuredClone. > I don't like how short you are, how you phrase this as some huge weakness. I think you may be reading into my comments more than what is actually there. I think it's a reasonable enough compromise, and I'm happy to have structuredClone.

I didn't say that the algorithm was trivial, just that the object was. `{ foo: () => {} }` is a fairly trivial object, all things considered.

by johnfn 3y ago

I didn't say that the algorithm was trivial, just that the object was. `{ foo: () => {} }` is a fairly trivial object, all things considered.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

It's not an object. JSON wouldn't cover that. It's code. With code complexity. That's non trivial & you seem to double down on an extensive ask far beyond .odt people's & what the typical need is, in a way that belittles the effort. I don't like how short you are, how you phrase this as some huge weakness. When in fact JSON.stringify/parse - what everyone uses today - have the same object-but-not-code limitations.

baq 3y ago
Functions are first-class objects though…? What’s json got to do with cloning objects except its prevalence as a limited workaround?
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  It's not just an object though. It's an object that has potentially has implicit bindings to something in the rest of the runtime. Bindings that (to my lament) aren't visible in the first clas-object; secret hidden internal state, tying it to the rest of the runtime. JSON defines what is possible to do that doesn't involve arbitrary bindings to the rest of the runtime. Short of serializing the world, JSON is the best we can do. It would be possible to try to serialize, and maybe a function is simple enough to serialize. Do we have existing examples of this? There's hundreds of different serialization libraries. For some reason everyone in this thread is super ignoring what seems like a basic widespread limitation, is being condescending to structuredClone, for not doing what no one else does either. Because there's a very good reason: because here be dragons. I don't get why everyone is so combative & aggressive over what seems so clear.
johnfn 3y ago
Why are you talking about JSON? This was a discussion about structuredClone. > I don't like how short you are, how you phrase this as some huge weakness. I think you may be reading into my comments more than what is actually there. I think it's a reasonable enough compromise, and I'm happy to have structuredClone.