I've been so jealous of that plan as I've been working on class features. It'd be great to recuperate something like that. At the same time, I imagine we'll come up with the feature set differently this time, with input from a much broader group.
-
-
It'd true that you can list the things TC39 has been working on and can be presented in an intimidating way. But I think what we've promoted to late stages fits together well and can be learned piece by piece over time.
-
For new proposals, I'm happy to see that many come with early implementations in transpilers and polyfills. I think we can spend time getting more feedback from the JS developer community on these to make sure we are not making a mistake.
-
But, I don't want to talk about this as if it were a simple budget--understanding a language is more complicated than that, and it's just not actionable feedback for those who want to look into changes. We can direct contributors' energy into careful study.
-
Totally agree. When pieces fit together nicely, they cost drastically less per feature than if they chafe against each other. Decorators and public/private fields took their time (and then some) and I think it's ok if other new features take time to get feedback and get refined.
-
The transpiler feedback loop is pretty strong, and letting people play with a collection of features to see how they'll be used in practice feels like a good way to understand what we're doing and take our time with it.
-
There's a lot to work through for transpilers, like how do we make sure they don't become unmaintainable, and how do we manage expectations about stability (it will be unstable). But I think it will pay for itself if we can get enough help from the community.
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.