41–50 of 119 posts
Note that this doesn't include ES6 modules. The referenced kangax compatibility table doesn't cover modules, so the tweet is technically correct, but the headline here on HN is a bit misleading.
Is anyone using Safari Technical Preview as their main Browser? I was hesitant to use it, but I've heard a few people say that it's stable.
It's a dev preview. There is no reason to use it as your main browser. There isn't even much point testing your site in it, since you can never tell who's responsible for something being broken, and it becomes more a test of how production-ready the preview is, which is a really pointless metric. The only real reason for its existence is so we can all track progress in benchmarks, and for this story to get publicity when all us browser nerds check ES6 compat and then try little code snippets in the console.
If you want the cool purple icon, copy it to to Safari 9. That's what I've done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my limited anecdotal testing no. In fact it may be slower. This is a good view of this: https://kpdecker.github.io/six-speed/ However... the potential upside is size. Native code will usually be smaller, which for a web client is a win.
I'm having trouble reading the table, when it says 16x slower, is it saying the implementation is slower or the engine?
Webkit was probably one of the last major web engines to start integrating ES6 features, yet they have TCOs done. Anyone explain what's holding it up in Chrome/FF/Edge?
tl;dr we implemented it, it works, but we are not shipping it because we believe it would hurt developers to lose some stack frames from Error.stack in existing sites, among other issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of Babel?
If you're using Babel already, WebKit hitting 100% support is irrelevant. IE is going to be the thing that prevents us from running ES6 natively in the browser for several years more.
Is anyone using Safari Technical Preview as their main Browser? I was hesitant to use it, but I've heard a few people say that it's stable.
It was good for a bit, then 1Password broke and I accepted that my Slack messages were never going to load. It's a dev preview. There is no reason to use it as your main browser. There isn't even much point testing your site in it, since you can never tell who's responsible for something being broken, and it becomes more a test of how production-ready the preview is, which is a really pointless metric. The only real…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of Babel?
If you're using Babel already, WebKit hitting 100% support is irrelevant. IE is going to be the thing that prevents us from running ES6 natively in the browser for several years more.
Is anyone using Safari Technical Preview as their main Browser? I was hesitant to use it, but I've heard a few people say that it's stable.
I changed the icon out with the original safari icon though, personal preference, and set it as my system default web browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ever heard of Babel?
If you're using Babel already, WebKit hitting 100% support is irrelevant. IE is going to be the thing that prevents us from running ES6 natively in the browser for several years more.
Webkit was probably one of the last major web engines to start integrating ES6 features, yet they have TCOs done. Anyone explain what's holding it up in Chrome/FF/Edge?
There's been heavy discussion (especially recently) on the value of implicit TCO for developers. I believe all three V8/Chakra/Spidermonkey all found TCO regresses performance a bit. Additionally, it hampers debugging considerably as call stacks are completely twisted. There's been a lot of active discussion between browser vendors and TC39 recently to sort out a path forward. All teams are excited about explicit TCO…