What the *smoosh* happened to Array#flatten?! Why is everyone talking about MooTools? Why doesn’t TC39 just break the Web?
@mathias explains #SmooshGate:https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate …
-
-
Replying to @ChromiumDev @mathias
craig martin Retweeted craig martin
"'don’t break the Web' is the number one design principle for ... JavaScript" Why?https://twitter.com/thecraigmichael/status/972201451677155329 …
craig martin added,
craig martin @thecraigmichaelReplying to @BenLesh @Rich_Harris @_jayphelpsBut is it the prerogative of TC39 to be guardians of The Web, or of the ECMAScript language? Wouldn't it seem like the right place to address userland business logic is in that page's codebase - OR, if the browsers have a stake in One Web, at that layer?https://twitter.com/thecraigmichael/status/972195533430370309 …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For the reasons listed in https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate#break-the-web …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Does it strike you as odd that a *language* specification committee is beholden to userland business logic - something with limited visibility on a non-web platform, eg node - as a contract, and not a set of well defined principles?
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @thecraigmichael @jaffathecake and
It's such biased totalistic absolutist brow-beating to phrase it as "why don't we break the web?". It's nasty. It already has the knife in your heart before you even finish making your argument. So meanspirited.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rektide @thecraigmichael and
If we add ANYTHING to JS we probably break some website somewhere. Knowing is more or less impossible. Do we know how many MooTools 1.2 & before website there are? Can we find 500? 100? How much breakage are we talking about?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rektide @thecraigmichael and
This whole thing is handled so disgustingly by strong-arming pretentious ass "leaders" who browbeat & disabuse any arugmentation in such over the top ways. This disgusting FAQ just carries that on. So unwilling to accept the very premise that there are tradeoffs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rektide @thecraigmichael and
rektide de la fay Retweeted Reginald Braithwaite
From a calmer man than me, in a solid thread, touching to how silly & absolute-ist the "leadership" is on this one,https://mobile.twitter.com/raganwald/status/974691199020945408 …
rektide de la fay added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rektide @thecraigmichael and
That thread seems to be based on the assumption that "smoosh" was a serious proposal.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I should know better than to weigh in here, but a few things: - browsers have a responsibility towards their users and competitive pressure to render as much content as possible - browser teams fund most JS engine development - change sometimes involves breaking *some* things
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @jaffathecake and
But being a responsible steward means understandng the scale and scope of impact of proposed changes -- if only as a proxy to the likely costs you're externalizing. Hence guidance like this: https://www.chromium.org/blink/removing-features …
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @jaffathecake and
I guess my point is one you're happy to make: TC39 as lang governing body conflates The Web with the ES lang. Whereas One Javascript is a lang principle, One Web as the position of a lang body seems to couple the lang to one prioritized client, rather than offer a contract to all
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes - 2 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.