> "with" gets a bad rap, and its blanket discouragement/deprecation may be as big a mistake as its original design Unfortunately not. The design of with not on

> "with" gets a bad rap, and its blanket discouragement/deprecation may be as big a mistake as its original design Unfortunately not. The design of with not only makes the code difficult to reason about for humans, it also makes the code difficult to reason about for js engines, and so it typically prevents any interesting optimisations. So code written using "with" will be both confusing and slow.