10 ms·

The ES6 spec draft is in its final stages of being revised. At this point there shouldn't be any substantial developer-facing changes except to a few final thin

by Benvie 13y ago

The ES6 spec draft is in its final stages of being revised. At this point there shouldn't be any substantial developer-facing changes except to a few final things that are being ironed out (mainly modules). The features that are being shipped in Firefox are ones that are stable in the draft spec and not expected to change. At the point of spec stability, these features need to be actually tested in broader distribution to help find any potential compatibility corner cases, similar to the issues found with Array.prototype.values [1]. [1] http://www.esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-values-breaks-the-web http://www.esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-values-breaks...

jgraham 13y ago
Moreover, the model in which large, multifaceted standards go through a series of revisions, with vendors following in lockstep, releasing implementations of everything that has been decreed stable and nothing that has not, has never been the way the web worked, despite the fact that many standards organisations design their processes around it. In practice vendors implement small chunks of emerging ideas, with flags to prevent the ideas reaching the stable versions being a relatively novel addition to the process made possible by rapid release schedules. The ideas become stable, ready or not, when enough people are using them that it's no longer possible to remove or amend the implementation without breaking sites and thereby annoying your user base. I hear that the TC39 group that controls ECMAScript are planning to adjust to this reality by incrementally standardising features in the future so, perhaps, instead of "ES7" we will see specs for "ES foo", where "foo" is a specific feature. Ironically this is closer to the way that some non-web languages like Python (ignoring the 2/3 divide) work, with a series of enhancements that are adopted as they are ready, even though Python actually does have clear and meaningful versions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cromwellian 13y ago
I agree with it in principle, but this isn't the first time FF has dropped in Javascript features which are still not finalized. I just think that if other browser vendors are going to be raked over the coals for not rigidly adhering to standards processes and shipping non-approved features not behind flags, everyone should be held to the same standard, a consistent policy.
- jgon 13y ago
  If the other vendors weren't, respectively, the largest, second largest, and third largest tech companies in the world, and amongst the most valuable companies in the world this comparison would make sense. If, of the other three browser makers, we weren't discussing a company that holds a near monopoly on desktop OS's, a company that holds a near monopoly on the high-end of computing, and the third which holds a near monopoly on internet services this comparison would again make sense. Should Mozilla have been more conservative in shipping features that are actually written up in a spec on their fledgling OS? Probably, playing strictly by the rules is generally a good thing. Is this comparable to a different vendor working to ship an enormous feature which didn't even have a spec, and which the person at the centre of the controversy asked other people to help write because they had been so busy? No, not at all. Size, influence, and power always make a difference. I have a hard time understanding how you wouldn't see this.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Like the Geneva Conventions, they protect both big and small players, in times of war, as long as everyone agrees to abide by them. The big players, as you indicate, could really do a lot more, unimpeded, but have shown relative restraint and participated voluntarily these standards committees. I don't think granting a waiver for one particular vendor is conducive to influencing others to play by the rules. What's the lesson? Two wrongs make a right?
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > I just think that if other browser vendors are going to be raked over the coals for not rigidly adhering to standards processes and shipping non-approved features not behind flags, everyone should be held to the same standard, a consistent policy. ES6 has cross-vendor support and a draft specification [1], which are not true of PNaCl or Dart. No browser vendor has stated opposition to ES6 that I'm aware of; everyone's committed to implementing it. [1]: https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html
  - 13y ago

by Benvie 13y ago

jgraham 13y ago

Moreover, the model in which large, multifaceted standards go through a series of revisions, with vendors following in lockstep, releasing implementations of everything that has been decreed stable and nothing that has not, has never been the way the web worked, despite the fact that many standards organisations design their processes around it. In practice vendors implement small chunks of emerging ideas, with flags to prevent the ideas reaching the stable versions being a relatively novel addition to the process made possible by rapid release schedules. The ideas become stable, ready or not, when enough people are using them that it's no longer possible to remove or amend the implementation without breaking sites and thereby annoying your user base. I hear that the TC39 group that controls ECMAScript are planning to adjust to this reality by incrementally standardising features in the future so, perhaps, instead of "ES7" we will see specs for "ES foo", where "foo" is a specific feature. Ironically this is closer to the way that some non-web languages like Python (ignoring the 2/3 divide) work, with a series of enhancements that are adopted as they are ready, even though Python actually does have clear and meaningful versions.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

cromwellian 13y ago

I agree with it in principle, but this isn't the first time FF has dropped in Javascript features which are still not finalized. I just think that if other browser vendors are going to be raked over the coals for not rigidly adhering to standards processes and shipping non-approved features not behind flags, everyone should be held to the same standard, a consistent policy.

jgon 13y ago
If the other vendors weren't, respectively, the largest, second largest, and third largest tech companies in the world, and amongst the most valuable companies in the world this comparison would make sense. If, of the other three browser makers, we weren't discussing a company that holds a near monopoly on desktop OS's, a company that holds a near monopoly on the high-end of computing, and the third which holds a near monopoly on internet services this comparison would again make sense. Should Mozilla have been more conservative in shipping features that are actually written up in a spec on their fledgling OS? Probably, playing strictly by the rules is generally a good thing. Is this comparable to a different vendor working to ship an enormous feature which didn't even have a spec, and which the person at the centre of the controversy asked other people to help write because they had been so busy? No, not at all. Size, influence, and power always make a difference. I have a hard time understanding how you wouldn't see this.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Like the Geneva Conventions, they protect both big and small players, in times of war, as long as everyone agrees to abide by them. The big players, as you indicate, could really do a lot more, unimpeded, but have shown relative restraint and participated voluntarily these standards committees. I don't think granting a waiver for one particular vendor is conducive to influencing others to play by the rules. What's the lesson? Two wrongs make a right?
pcwalton 13y ago
> I just think that if other browser vendors are going to be raked over the coals for not rigidly adhering to standards processes and shipping non-approved features not behind flags, everyone should be held to the same standard, a consistent policy. ES6 has cross-vendor support and a draft specification [1], which are not true of PNaCl or Dart. No browser vendor has stated opposition to ES6 that I'm aware of; everyone's committed to implementing it. [1]: https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html
- 13y ago