Async iteration is already at Stage 3? Nice.
ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#62Do any of these changes make the language objectively better? All I see are nice-to-haves that aren't really required.
`Object.entries` and `Object.values` are huge wins in my book. Makes common looping operations less obtuse and obfuscated.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using a bundler and transpiler, ES modules are already in strict mode.
Like most folk I don't use TC39 modules, just npm/commonjs modules. I guess when/if npm and node (and all the frontend tooling that uses npm and node) starts using TC39 modules they'll get popular.
Es6 modules suck because they will litter the global scope, while commonjs/nodejs modules can be required locally.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#64Realistically, when are we going to see the modules situation resolved? ES2017? ES2018? I know, I know, just use a transpiler and emit a bundle... but really? It's been a draft since 2015, and no browsers have any support for it yet, despite full support for the rest of the standard? Are modules really that controversial? I'm kind of disappointed, honestly, that despite all the progress in the ecosystem, this long st…
es6 modules are basically sugars for async loading (AMD) with some limitatons/restrictions.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#65Good to see such quick progress in this area in major browsers. It's worth noting that WebKit also has 100% support for ES 2016+. So now only Edge is lagging in this regard. [0] http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es2016plus/#webkit
And yet WebKit has 99% on ES5, while Edge and Firefox have 100% (and Chrome has 98%). http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es5/
But webkit has 100% support for ES6 (according to kangex) while nobody else does...
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet WebKit has 99% on ES5, while Edge and Firefox have 100% (and Chrome has 98%). http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es5/
But webkit has 100% support for ES6 (according to kangex) while nobody else does...
Yeah, and it's great. It's just that WebKit's (and Apple's) efforts are sometimes.. lopsided.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're using a transpiler anyway, who really cares if you have native support for the language features? Looking forward to the day alternative languages start targeting WebAssembly instead of JavaScript.
You mean "the day WebAssembly gets out of preview/alpha/worse status in all major browsers".. yeah, don't we all --- wouldn't hold my breath. Once there, give it another 2 years to actually mature in the wild.
I agree, after all we still have some customers on IE 8, but one can wish for it.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most folk I don't use TC39 modules, just npm/commonjs modules. I guess when/if npm and node (and all the frontend tooling that uses npm and node) starts using TC39 modules they'll get popular.
Es6 modules suck because they will litter the global scope, while commonjs/nodejs modules can be required locally.
ES6 modules are great because they're statically analysable, whilst CommonJS modules aren't.
Re: ECMAScript 2016+ in Firefox
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it helps, only there is a bit of a lag. How many 'enterprise markets' run <IE9 nowadays?
Pharma industry, labs with XP machines doing robot automation with IE 8 installed.
But who needs to access your web app from a dedicated special purpose lab equipment control workstation?