The article and (overall) this comments section has thankfully focused on the problem domain, rather than individuals.
As the article points out, there are competing philosophies. James does a great job of outlining his vision.
Education on this domain is positive. Encouraging naming of dissenters, or assigning intent, is not. Folks in e18e who want to advance a particular set of goals are already acting constructively to progress towards those goals.
People aren't criticizing the development philosophy in this subthread. This has been done by the article itself and by several people before.
What people are criticizing is the approach in pushing this philosophy into the ecosystem for allegedly personal gain.
The fact that this philosophy has been pushed by a small number of individuals shows this is not a widespread belief in the ecosystem. That they are getting money out of the situation demonstrates that there is probably more to the philosophy than the technical merits of it.
The web has always needed a simpler tooling story, not just an easier one. And the credentials for this attempt are far more favourable than previous attempts.
Glad to see Vite+ is now MIT licensed. That will immensely help with adoption.
The Void.cloud/Cloudflare tie-in is very reasonable for deployment workflows and associated runtime APIs. I think I've heard that everything else in the Vite+ scope (build/test/check/run, etc) will be decoupled (i.e. plugin-based and agnostic of runtimes/hosting providers) which sounds like an important ongoing principle.
Yep. You can learn more about why we created this new blog here:
https://bloomberg.github.io/js-blog/post/intro/
I hope you like it ;-)
And if it seems like a surprise, you can blame me for not publicising this kind of content earlier given how long we've been working in this area. Thankfully Jon Kuperman and Thomas Chetwin (plus others) found the time and energy to put this platform together.
Congrats to the Boa team! It's great to see an independent open source project thrive and become more widely useful. This is huge impact.
On the integration with Kiesel and Chrome, I'm pleased to see that engines/browsers can share the cost of developing new language features.
Temporal is massive! Almost as big as the delta of introducing ES6. There are 4,000+ tests. The functionality does not need to be engine-specific, so it makes sense to leverage reuse.
I believe this is the first introduction of Rust into V8 itself. Which seems like a happy side-effect that hopefully makes it easier to share more Rust libraries in future. This helps keep browser development sustainable.
I attempted to implement the Temporal spec myself and it really isn't fun. After the tc39 meeting in May, I also switched to `temporal_rs` for `yavashark`. My own implementation ways everything else than optimal, I didn't support the RFC9557 timeformat.
In theory you could even use temporal_rs to provide an perfect polyfil with wasm.
We could do a WASM FFI target. I have thought about it lol
My only concern is that temporal_rs packages it's own time zone data, which may make the WASM package a little heavy, so I've been inclined to leave the polyfill up to fullcalendar's implementation.
Diplomat has a wasm backend so it would even be really easy to produce a WASM ffi target with idiomatic JS and TS bindings.
Also, Diplomat supports traits and callbacks so you could actually make the timezone impl pluggable. Though we don't currently have JS support for that.
It's true the down-levelled code that uses WeakMaps is slower. The decision to downlevel is in the hands of the user and is controlled by the tsconfig "target" option.
The only environment that needs downlevelled #private fields is IE11.
Which value are you setting for target? I tried es2021, and it still doesn't give me native #. I cannot use esnext, because other stuff doesn't compile anymore.
As the article points out, there are competing philosophies. James does a great job of outlining his vision.
Education on this domain is positive. Encouraging naming of dissenters, or assigning intent, is not. Folks in e18e who want to advance a particular set of goals are already acting constructively to progress towards those goals.
reply