Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not be web-compatible (original) (raw)

You guys are much more optimistic than I am about this ever being shippable. I am starting a new thread to investigate solutions that don’t involve waiting for indeterminate amounts of time, but of course if we can somehow fix the MooTools-using web and not change anything about Array.prototype.contains, that would be ideal.

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of John-David Dalton Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 00:55 To: Jason Orendorff Cc: es-discuss Subject: Re: Having a non-enumerable Array.prototype.contains may not be web-compatible

So put ES7 features behind a flag until the water clears a bit. We'll get there. It kind of surprises me (a good surprise) that now, because of JSFiddle, there's super interest in MooTools. When in the past, when MooTools was arguably more popular, it didn't stop the language and browsers from breaking them over and over again.

JDD

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com<mailto:jason.orendorff at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com<mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm personally against unmaintained code and/or websites but here it's not ES7 breaking the web, it's a library already broken (somehow) due native prototype pollution without a mechanism to prevent these, apparently historically known, problems.

Either way, you're telling me I should ship a browser that chokes on thousands of web sites that work fine today. That would be bad for our users, so I'm not planning on doing that.

it is also already patched and it's also a small fix.

The 6.5% of existing web sites using JS libraries that use MooTools have not been "already patched". Patching 3.5 million web sites is not a "small fix" in any relevant sense. It simply will not be done thoroughly or soon.

If sites and developers have no reason to update code 'cause ES7 cannot release until they'll change a file ... why would they anyway.

Yes. You have correctly identified incentives as a problem.

That does not constitute a reductio proof that browser vendors must ignore their users' interests and break the web. "Reductio ad the-world-is-not-as-I-wish-it-to-be" is not a thing.

JDD

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com<mailto:jason.orendorff at gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com<mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>> wrote: