Comments on: ECMAScript 5 http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/2009/05/23/ecmascript-5/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:05:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jeff Walden http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/2009/05/23/ecmascript-5/comment-page-1/#comment-296 Jeff Walden Sun, 31 May 2009 19:10:37 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/?p=65#comment-296 I disagree with Simon. Feature-testing thrives on the web, and I see no reason it can't thrive in this environment as well. I'm less sure about the syntactic extensions, but I think it's at least reasonable to allow const seeing as every engine out there (save for a certain elephant which doesn't matter in the GNOME context) supports it. Also, as far as "lock-in" goes, assuming you follow certain best practices (use semicolons!) it wouldn't be particularly difficult to desugar most syntactic extensions into ECMA-compatible code (and even if semicolons were omitted it still would be feasible to do so, just with more effort and probably with a hand-rolled parser). I disagree with Simon. Feature-testing thrives on the web, and I see no reason it can’t thrive in this environment as well. I’m less sure about the syntactic extensions, but I think it’s at least reasonable to allow const seeing as every engine out there (save for a certain elephant which doesn’t matter in the GNOME context) supports it. Also, as far as “lock-in” goes, assuming you follow certain best practices (use semicolons!) it wouldn’t be particularly difficult to desugar most syntactic extensions into ECMA-compatible code (and even if semicolons were omitted it still would be feasible to do so, just with more effort and probably with a hand-rolled parser).

]]> By: Simon http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/2009/05/23/ecmascript-5/comment-page-1/#comment-295 Simon Sun, 24 May 2009 21:00:14 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/?p=65#comment-295 I think allowing vendor-specific extensions would be a serious mistake, since I assume you don't intend to make any long term guarantees about which javascript implementation (e.g from Mozilla, WebKit, or something else) you're going to be using? I think allowing vendor-specific extensions would be a serious mistake, since I assume you don’t intend to make any long term guarantees about which javascript implementation (e.g from Mozilla, WebKit, or something else) you’re going to be using?

]]> By: Christopher Blizzard http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/2009/05/23/ecmascript-5/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Christopher Blizzard Sat, 23 May 2009 21:21:27 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/xan/?p=65#comment-294 John just put up a nice post about this: http://ejohn.org/blog/ecmascript-5-strict-mode-json-and-more/ That has a huge number of the specific language details. John just put up a nice post about this:

http://ejohn.org/blog/ecmascript-5-strict-mode-json-and-more/

That has a huge number of the specific language details.

]]>