I admit ignorance, never been to a TC39 meeting myself. All that I find impressive is that major new things like Wasm seem to come compatibly in all engines at about the same time, and (maybe?) in a reasonable timeframe? I can't imagine that happening elsewhere.
-
-
Replying to @RickByers @slightlylate and
But I know I don't have the whole picture. The grass is always greener...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @slightlylate and
I think in the end it depends on whether or not there is broad consensus not in the solution, but on the problem. Once people agree there is a problem worth solving it is easier to work together on a solution. Why put effort into something you don't really feel is valuable?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @reillyeon @slightlylate and
Yeah, and often the best way to reach consensus on a problem is to trial or ship a solution for it in one engine and learn from real-world experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @reillyeon and
Honestly I'd be 1,000% ok with that. But now, if I'm reading the screenshots of the original post correctly, Chrome folks are saying the shipped thing can't be changed, because it would break the web, because it's shipped. *That's* the part where people get justifiably pissed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdamRackis @RickByers and
But that screenshot was of one person, and maybe doesn't speak for everyone in Chrome-land, so maybe the spec can just be broken and fixed. One would hope.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @RickByers and
I'm only saying that the feature is used, so backwards breaking changes are a real issue, and should be taken into account. Not that the API can't be changed at all. Just consider that sites could break. That's a simple statement of fact.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani @AdamRackis and
Screen-shotting this and acting like I'm saying something I'm not is an incredibly lame move, but I've come to expect nothing less at this point.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani @RickByers and
To be clear, *that* sites will break is the problem, not you pointing it out. Maybe the most powerful browser on the market shouldn’t have shipped something with known objections? That’s the point here, tho I certainly don’t want to re-argue this thread at this point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @justinfagnani and
There are objections to everything. You're advocating for stagnation.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
The whole charade of under-investing engines leaning into process formalism to prevent scrutiny of their malign neglect *counts* on folks being distracted from the good by the (theoretically) perfect.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @davidbrunelle and
Come on guys. This narrative would be way more believable if Rich Harris hadn’t utterly broken this api with 4 lines of code off the top of his head. The objections seem pretty legit.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.