there are indeed tradeoffs to every decision. I could say that faster moving browsers that champion perf drive more adoption.
-
-
Replying to @TheLarkInn
championing performance is compatible with a strong commitment to backwards compatibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mixonic
oh yeah they aren't MutEx but sometimes they are. It too nuanced without looking at data, motivation, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLarkInn @mixonic
they very rarely are if you work at it. Most claims that they're mutex come before a serious compat effort undertaken.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
let's solution, what if all of us agreed on a breakage threshold? That way we don't get too argue "it's justifiable"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLarkInn @mixonic
the TC39 approach is: first try to find a compatible solution, base "compatible" on reality ... 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
(if a tree fall in the forest ...), if only a handful of sites break, reach out, if more than a handful break, 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
try harder. So far, we've never needed to go further and intentionally break many sites to achieve goals, but it's 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
because we work really hard on compat. Example: @@unscopeables, which declares new properties on old objects 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
not subject to the legacy with() feature. Maintains compat, but doesn't treat rationalizing legacy features as an 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
important constraint. More like this and we wouldn't be having the conversation so often. 6/6
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.