V8 Release v9.4
v8.dev
V8 Release v9.4
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#2For more info on the new feature: https://2ality.com/2021/09/class-static-block.html
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#3I honestly think the newer ECMAScript features with static blocks, private fields are a little strange.
I get that some people really want JavaScript to be object-oriented - but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off embracing and building on its functional side.
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#4I honestly think the newer ECMAScript features with static blocks, private fields are a little strange. I get that some people really want JavaScript to be object-oriented - but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off embracing and building on its functional side.
The worst part is that the syntax is designed to make JS look like other object-oriented languages without changing the prototypical object system to match the semantics of such languages.
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#5I was expecting the blog post to have a bit more of substance after the introductory line:
> V8 v9.4 is filled with all sorts of developer-facing goodies
Instead it just describes a single feature, and then DIY:
> Please use `git log branch-heads/9.3..branch-heads/9.4 include/v8.h` to get a list of the API changes.
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#6I was expecting the blog post to have a bit more of substance after the introductory line: > V8 v9.4 is filled with all sorts of developer-facing goodies Instead it just describes a single feature, and then DIY: > Please use `git log branch-heads/9.3..branch-heads/9.4 include/v8.h` to get a list of the API changes.
The DIY is apparently for people embedding V8, so the usual JS developer probably gains little from that list, anyway.
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#7I honestly think the newer ECMAScript features with static blocks, private fields are a little strange. I get that some people really want JavaScript to be object-oriented - but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off embracing and building on its functional side.
Yeah, I find them utterly bizarre. I find it hard to believe that people using private implementation details is a real problem that people have. Underscore prefixing is a well-established convention within the JavaScript ecosystem, and with typescript it's easy to hide fields from the static types. I'm usually up for new language additions, but I can't see the benefit to this added complexity at all.
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#8I was expecting the blog post to have a bit more of substance after the introductory line: > V8 v9.4 is filled with all sorts of developer-facing goodies Instead it just describes a single feature, and then DIY: > Please use `git log branch-heads/9.3..branch-heads/9.4 include/v8.h` to get a list of the API changes.
> all sorts of developer-facing goodies
From the posts in https://v8.dev/blog/tags/release, looks like the use the same opening paragraph every time. They should probably edit it or pick a default that doesn't promise so much :)
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#9I honestly think the newer ECMAScript features with static blocks, private fields are a little strange. I get that some people really want JavaScript to be object-oriented - but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off embracing and building on its functional side.
Some JavaScript people have been hostile to functional concepts since the beginning. See the missed opportunity to make Promise a monad.[1]
[1] https://github.com/promises-aplus/promises-spec/issues/94
Re: V8 Release v9.4
#10I honestly think the newer ECMAScript features with static blocks, private fields are a little strange. I get that some people really want JavaScript to be object-oriented - but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off embracing and building on its functional side.
IMO classes are almost pointless without private fields; hiding state (in the handful of cases where that's really actually what you want) is one of their main legitimate uses
But using static members in a language with module-level constants, functions, etc. just seems incredibly silly to me. And then expanding on that feature with exotic new syntaxes like this feels regressive.