28.08.2012, 04:33, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com > <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > >> 28.08.2012, 03:27, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>: >>> "Big red switches" like this are an anti-pattern. Occasionally they >>> can be useful, but they're hazardous and should be avoided if >>> possible. >> We already have this "anti-pattern" with DOCTYPE and with X-UA-Compatible. If language cannot be improved without such switches, this is fine pragmatic way to go that is much better than doing nothing. > > Yup, DOCTYPE switching was a necessary solution to a very bad compat > problem. The benefit outweighed the badness. X-UA-Compatible is > similar (though note that it's not endorsed by any vendors other than > IE and Chrome Frame, I think, because the pain isn't worth it to > anyone else). I'm not going to argue further; just want to mention another (relatively recent) example (I somehow forgot about it in my previous message) of such switch used in JavaScript (introduced in JavaScript 1.8.5 / ECMAScript 5) [1]: "use strict"; It has many of "hazards" you've mentioned as for switches, but it has not prevented this feature to be introduced into language. > You have to justify the big red switch. I don't think // comments > come *anywhere* near sufficient benefit to overcome the pain of a > switch. If it's not obvious, scope of my proposal is much bigger than just one-line comments (I personally am pretty happy with LESS that supports one-line comments). The proposal is a _universal_ way to extend CSS without endless wasting of time complaining about backward compatibility. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/JavaScript/Reference/Functions_and_function_scope/Strict_modeReceived on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 11:01:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC