Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Alex Russell 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @RickByers i 2 ostali
Modern JS evolution has been a disaster -- and I say that as someone who has pushed the boulder up the hill as much as anyone. We introduced the stages model after some of the worst, but still not on productive footing.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Adam Rackis 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @slightlylate @RickByers i 2 ostali
Can you explain more why modern JS evolution has been a disaster? Decorators have gone ... poorly. I understand some bad actors (I've heard rumors possibly at Google) have at times torpedoed it with bad intent. But other than that ... I see a huge success. Where do you differ?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Alex Russell 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @RickByers i 2 ostali
I see the full balance sheet (which you don't) of time invested for progress delivered. TC39 is bad value. Decorators. Promises. Cancellation. Classes. Intrinsic subclassing. Decorators. Many, many aspects of modules. All many, many years late...and we aren't even to types yet.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Adam Rackis 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @slightlylate @RickByers i 2 ostali
Years late? By whose schedule? Those features had *many* competing visions, and achieving consensus was fucking hard. But most got done, with outstanding results. I'm most sympathetic to Promise cancellation. The ideologues surrounding anything Promise-related are the *worst*
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mike Sherov (he/him) 🚀 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @slightlylate i 3 ostali
It's unfortunate because this is all opinion, but I can't help but agree with Alex that the rate of change of JS to adopt completely needed features like Observables, Promise Cancellation, decorators, static/private/ class fields has been slow compared to other langs.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mike Sherov (he/him) 🚀 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @slightlylate i 3 ostali
And when you look at it, everyone on TC39 is trying their best and doing a great job, and we do have progress, but as a procedure wonk I can't help but blame the need for *complete consensus* for the pace of change in the language.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Kevin Kamimura 25. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @mikesherov @AdamRackis i 4 ostali
Don’t break the web, that is the number one goal. So it is not fair nor accurate to compare Web/JS with other platforms and languages. Few have as much responsibility and reach, and such any change needs to be thoroughly thought through.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Rick Byers 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Kevin_Kamimura @mikesherov i 4 ostali
Actually my #1 goal is to slow/stop the web's slide into irrelevance. Broken things can be fixed. Irrelevant things are rarely reserected!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Kevin Kamimura 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RickByers @mikesherov i 4 ostali
Irrelevance for whom? Maybe not being able to use the web as a tool, to compete with native platforms makes it irrelevant for Google, but Google doesn’t speaks for everyone. Without engine diversity the web is no longer open, and that is its largest appeal over native.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Alex Russell 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Kevin_Kamimura @RickByers i 4 ostali
Engine diversity absolutists need to describe what concrete benefits it provides that can't be achieved other ways in the medium-term (e.g., OSS forking, which has created huge divergence in the KHTML-lineage engines)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Adam Rackis
“Engine diversity absolutists” ? This is extremely concerning rhetoric from the Chrome head of standards, especially given the topic of this thread, the potential abuse of Chrome’s market power.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Anthony Ramine 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @SimonSapin i 6 ostali
Alex Russell is a toxic gatekeeper that should probably not have the decision power he has.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Adam Rackis 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @nokusu @SimonSapin i 6 ostali
“Toxic” is too strong imo, but I’m increasingly thinking someone else at Google should be making these decisions.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Tomasz Łakomy 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis
Whoever will screenshot this thread, please include me too
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jussi Kalliokoski 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @slightlylate i 5 ostali
Chrome head of standards doesn’t seem to hold standards in such high a regard 🤷‍♀️
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
🇪🇺OMLT🇪🇺 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis @slightlylate i 5 ostali
You're absolutely right and as a simple user, this is absolutely disgusting behaviour from the Chrome team. No amount of damage control can correct this kind of toxic behaviour. Thanks, I'm just going to donate to the EFF and Mozilla. Prick.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
major country 26. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AdamRackis
You don't want Google to control every aspect of the software you interact with? Stop being such a SJW!!!!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"