Serious question: Why would this change “break the web” ? Constructable stylesheets are behind a flag, since they’re non-standard, right? Why can’t they be changed at this point? There’s never an expectation of stability when stuff is behind a flag, right?
-
-
Replying to @AdamRackis @Rich_Harris
They're shipped to stable Chrome (and many Chromium embedders enable them too).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @Rich_Harris
As the person who runs standards for Chrome, can you please explain how the fuck a non-standard feature got shipped to Stable Chrome?
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @Rich_Harris
We often lead, balancing risk/reward rather than demanding a particular point in an arbitrary process. https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features … Leadership is rather the point of having an engine team, after all.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Given that chrome has a near monopoly don't you think you should maybe not ship something as stable before other browsers have it to not reinforce the monopoly?
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @hrmny_ @slightlylate and
FWIW this is how the web has ALWAYS evolved. Almost all APIs we use today we're shipped in the dominant engine prior to a standard being ratified (IE, Netscape, WebKit, now chromium). JavaScript language is a notable and impressive counter-example.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @hrmny_ and
It isn't, tho. NN 2 unilaterally added livescript. MSFT copied and forced standardisation at ECMA. Same as it ever was.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Surely Rick meant modern JS, ie ES6 and beyond, when he noted how impressive the JS standardization was? I've sadly not been in web dev long enough (originally a boring, corporate .net dev) to even know what you're referring to -- LiveScript? Did you just make that up? ;)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @RickByers and
Modern JS evolution has been a disaster -- and I say that as someone who has pushed the boulder up the hill as much as anyone. We introduced the stages model after some of the worst, but still not on productive footing.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Can you explain more why modern JS evolution has been a disaster? Decorators have gone ... poorly. I understand some bad actors (I've heard rumors possibly at Google) have at times torpedoed it with bad intent. But other than that ... I see a huge success. Where do you differ?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I see the full balance sheet (which you don't) of time invested for progress delivered. TC39 is bad value. Decorators. Promises. Cancellation. Classes. Intrinsic subclassing. Decorators. Many, many aspects of modules. All many, many years late...and we aren't even to types yet.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Years late? By whose schedule? Those features had *many* competing visions, and achieving consensus was fucking hard. But most got done, with outstanding results. I'm most sympathetic to Promise cancellation. The ideologues surrounding anything Promise-related are the *worst*
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @slightlylate and
It's unfortunate because this is all opinion, but I can't help but agree with Alex that the rate of change of JS to adopt completely needed features like Observables, Promise Cancellation, decorators, static/private/ class fields has been slow compared to other langs.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 30 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.