- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:59:14 +0200
- To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
* Sean Hogan wrote: >I can't imagine any scenario where people would switch to using this, >because: > >a) it won't be universally supported for some time. Meanwhile it is just >another feature to detect >b) even when it is universal, the old methods will still be available >c) it gives no appreciable performance boost Web browser developers are and talk the most to people who work very closely to the browser cores. Consider people writing applications for only one browser like "demos" often are these days, or browser-specific test suites or extensions and so on. They love this kind of stuff and actually will use it. Others not so much, but they don't care much. >Is there any precedent for js devs switching to a different API when it >isn't necessary and doesn't improve functionality or performance? Release and distribution policies and methods are changing, it used to be that you get the latest browser by buying a magazine that has it on a CD and then install it if you like. Now browser vendors take control of your computer and install whatever they think you should run, and do so quickly, so looking at precedents is not very instructive in the mid-term as this is a relatively recent development. But yes, there are some features that slowly get picked up in niches and eventually spread. Most people don't notice because the libraries and frameworks offer the relevant features reliably long before they become viable to use directly, and it is not unusual that they do not work well alongside the library if it does not wrap it. If loading a library was as easy as saying "use Library;" without first pulling in another library and without landing in a intra-library compatibility nightbare, and a library maintenance nightmare, which we do due to JS language design and library curation and general testing problems, we would be talking a lot less about pulling all sorts of things into the Core. But we do have these problems and warped perspectives so we do get to discuss proposals such as this one, and it is difficult to argue with the low effort / low benefit argument in support of such proposals. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 21:59:48 UTC