Turning "we try hard not to break sites if we can avoid it" into a morally suspect position strikes me as overheated rhetoric. The details matter. smoosh() is a stupid name, but changing contains() to includes() was a reasonable thing to do to avoid breaking sites.
-
-
These occasional flare ups where hard-working standards folks (including web developers you probably respect) are attacked for being out of touch and "holding back the web" does nothing to make our job easier.
Show this thread -
We already understand that the future is bigger than the past, and that we don't want to do something ridiculous to accommodate a handful of sites.
Show this thread -
But we need to do our job, which means exploring the available options, estimate the expected amount of breakage, and ultimately make a decision that balances the factors correctly.
Show this thread -
Right now, helping would look like brainstorming alternative names, thinking about technical ways to mitigate the damage (a la @
@unscopeable), and helping to empirically estimate how common the problem would be.Show this thread -
(for example, how common, empirically, are bugs caused by the difference between the proposed spec and the in-the-wild implementation)
Show this thread -
Also, we could discuss the possibility of adopting the in-the-wild semantics (flatten Infinity levels by default) on a dedicated GitHub issue.
Show this thread -
All of that is careful but important work and you can help with it if you're interested.
Show this thread -
Not helping: starting campaigns to "force" those "out of touch" TC39 "neckbeards" to "stop holding the web back". You're talking to real people who write JavaScript every day who are trying to do a job that is already difficult. Please send help.
Show this thread
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.