oh, you know, just the committee that makes JavaScript. No big thing.
-
-
Replying to @wycats
yeah the workings of these standards committees are completely mysterious to me. I'd love to hear more about how the process feels
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @b0rk
throw some questions at me and I'll try and answer them tomorrow on the blog. If not I'll try to answer the generic Q.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @wycats
who is in the meeting? do you have to implement the future of JavaScript before you decide on it?
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @b0rk
Short answers: Who's there? Engine implementors, developers, a handful of academics and theorists, and
@BrendanEich.1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
"do you have to implement the future of JavaScript before you decide on it?" no -> polyfills/transpilers -> engines -> locked
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
"do people mostly agree fundamentally on what the future of JavaScript should look like?" No, but there's agreement on big picture
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
There is??
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Big picture: JS isn't going anywhere, evolution over revolution, JS is a multi-paradigm language, hi-road/low-road
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I don't know what hi/low road refers to. I agree with the others, but I don't think there's close to consensus yet.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think there's perhaps a surprising degree of agreement on these basic things on the committee.
-
-
Oh, *on the committee*. I have no idea. I think in the world of implementors there's much less agreement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
oh that is certainly likely. I think it's good that the committee shares some core values :)
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
End of conversation
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.