We're not talking about destroying the work of the people who were Told™. We're talking about destroying (the only copy of) the work of authors whose publishers (unwittingly, in many cases) used the wrong paper.https://twitter.com/brianmfitch/status/971770091665752064 …
-
-
The only thing that happened so far is that someone raised a compat issue and TC39 members are taking a breath to see what options we have. And yes, by default, the right thing to do is to look for tweaks that don't break things.
-
That said, smoosh is not a good replacement name, and I would have objected to it if it was proposed seriously to the committee. The idea is somehow that by focusing on the costs of a change & the tools available to us, we're a bunch of unaccountable idiots holding the web back.
-
Instead, we're taking the costs of a breaking change seriously (at least momentarily) and surveying the options. And there hasn't even been another meeting yet! Just GitHub comments! The pitchforks are coming a bit early here.
-
Yeah, the reaction has been disappointing to say the least. While I've got you, what about `arr.flattened()`? That seems more appropriate anyway, given that it doesn't (if I understand correctly) mutate `arr`
-
I mean there's literally more noise about some discussion about what to do about a web compat issue than when TC39 momentarily recommended semicolon usage.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The major issue I have is MooTools isn’t in wide use. And while it was used in the past, we shouldn’t be afraid to break a decade-old mostly defunct library. If we are, we become Microsoft with tons of cruft polluting our eco-system.
-
at the scale of the web, a fraction of a percentage means hundreds of thousands of sites
-
That very well may be totally outdated and unused. Neither you nor I can say if it’s important those sites are available.
-
I'd say existing sites being available is a lot more important than JS devs getting their first choice for method names.
-
I get that’s your position and I acknowledge it’s valid but I disagree with it and think this specific statement is over simplification
-
I think it depends on the consequences. Array.prototype.contains -> Array.prototype.includes had no meaningful impact on usability, so it was more or less a slam dunk. flatten -> smoosh() is much worse so the tradeoff isn't worth it. The details matter.
-
100% agree. If we can find a sensible alternative, great let’s do that. “smoosh” is not sensible. I would also say we can weigh impact. Impacting sites built on MooTools is acceptable in 2018.
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.