> Web tech is essentially append only
not if you implement backwards-compatible opt-outs for which see my reply concerning pragmas a la `'use strict'`
not if you implement backwards-compatible opt-outs for which see my reply concerning pragmas a la `'use strict'`
And may they do it, I don't care except for the weight of the little-used lines of code that are carried forward indefinitely. And it's not only 'append'; appending stuff we can without breaking backwards compatibility, it's the 'update' operations that curiously many view as infeasible despite there already being `'use strict'`.
Server side developers yearn for their favorite language in the browser, but are used to living in a world where language deprecations mean "this feature will disappear from all modern version of the language eventually" not "you can opt-out of this feature by placing a string somewhere in your code". To me that's a hollow definition of 'update'. Golang for example completely changed the semantics of for loops this year [1]. Moving forward, if you use a modern version of Go, you will accept the way for loops work now — there's no magical 'use old for loops' string. It's awesome that they were able to unilaterally make a breaking change to the language and force users to accept it moving forward. We can't do that in JS, that's the point I'm making.