New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ECMAScript 6 collection: Set #1408

Open
Fyrd opened this Issue May 12, 2015 · 13 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@Fyrd
Owner

Fyrd commented May 12, 2015

ECMAScript 6 collection: Set
http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/09/25/ecmascript-6-collections-part-1-sets/


This issue was imported from Google Moderator

Moderator votes: +4
Issue added by Matthew on 2012-09-26
To vote this issue up or down, simply include +1 or -1 in your comment.

@cvrebert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bfred-it

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bfred-it

bfred-it Aug 18, 2015

Contributor

-1

Given the complexity and the sheer number of variables, I'd keep ES6 subfeatures out of caniuse.

Maybe it could keep "ES6" as a single entity with all browser currently in "partial support", but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Contributor

bfred-it commented Aug 18, 2015

-1

Given the complexity and the sheer number of variables, I'd keep ES6 subfeatures out of caniuse.

Maybe it could keep "ES6" as a single entity with all browser currently in "partial support", but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

@flyingfisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flyingfisch

flyingfisch Oct 7, 2015

+1

Not necessarily for set, but for ECMAScript 6 in general since it is complete as of June 2015. That said, AFAIK there is no complete implementation in any browser yet, so like @bfred-it said, we would have to make every browser have partial support.

+1

Not necessarily for set, but for ECMAScript 6 in general since it is complete as of June 2015. That said, AFAIK there is no complete implementation in any browser yet, so like @bfred-it said, we would have to make every browser have partial support.

@Benimation

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Benimation

Benimation Dec 15, 2015

+1 also for general support

+1 also for general support

@BeejeeDS

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

BeejeeDS commented Mar 7, 2016

+1

@BillyWM

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyWM

BillyWM Sep 28, 2016

-1

Caniuse doesn't need to be everything to everyone. Kangax's table and Node.green already cover this well. Stick to browser APIs and CSS features.

BillyWM commented Sep 28, 2016

-1

Caniuse doesn't need to be everything to everyone. Kangax's table and Node.green already cover this well. Stick to browser APIs and CSS features.

@flyingfisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flyingfisch

flyingfisch Sep 28, 2016

@BillyWM then it should at least be consistent. Currently EcmaScript 5 browser support is shown, we either need to remove that or add ES6. Anything else would be inconsistent.

@BillyWM then it should at least be consistent. Currently EcmaScript 5 browser support is shown, we either need to remove that or add ES6. Anything else would be inconsistent.

@BillyWM

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BillyWM

BillyWM Sep 28, 2016

I don't care if it's inconsistent. Nor do I care of it's immoral or bad for my health. That doesn't matter to me as a user. What matters is that I already have a resource for this information and Caniuse would be a me-too latecomer. It's pretty pointless and I wouldn't recommend anyone put their time into it. (And wait, why should we remove ES5 in accordance with some weird high-concept consistency principle?)

ES6 is much bigger than ES5 as well. It needs to be one entry per feature. That's fine, it wouldn't hurt anything except being a waste of time.

There is also ES2016 (aka ES7) which is actually complete now and yearly ESNext releases from now on. I expect other resources will track this well.

BillyWM commented Sep 28, 2016

I don't care if it's inconsistent. Nor do I care of it's immoral or bad for my health. That doesn't matter to me as a user. What matters is that I already have a resource for this information and Caniuse would be a me-too latecomer. It's pretty pointless and I wouldn't recommend anyone put their time into it. (And wait, why should we remove ES5 in accordance with some weird high-concept consistency principle?)

ES6 is much bigger than ES5 as well. It needs to be one entry per feature. That's fine, it wouldn't hurt anything except being a waste of time.

There is also ES2016 (aka ES7) which is actually complete now and yearly ESNext releases from now on. I expect other resources will track this well.

@flyingfisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flyingfisch

flyingfisch Sep 28, 2016

Just did a quick poll of my friends and none of them knew about Kangax's table or Node.green since we are not primarily JS developers and those resources aren't as well-known as caniuse. All of us go to caniuse when trying to determine whether a feature is supported in the browsers we support.

What I'm saying about consistency is that the fact that there is a caniuse entry for ES5 causes one to expect entries for other versions of EcmaScript as well, or at least for EcmaScript features. The fact that there are no entries for these is an unpleasant surprise to the user.

I'm fine with having the ES6 features listed individually as well, as long as there is some sort of documentation for ES6.

One last point:

Caniuse doesn't need to be everything to everyone.

I agree with this statement in and of itself. However, I believe caniuse should strive to document every standard browser feature. The name "caniuse" implies that it is a one-stop source for checking browser support. The user does not expect to only have entries for a certain subset of standard features.

flyingfisch commented Sep 28, 2016

Just did a quick poll of my friends and none of them knew about Kangax's table or Node.green since we are not primarily JS developers and those resources aren't as well-known as caniuse. All of us go to caniuse when trying to determine whether a feature is supported in the browsers we support.

What I'm saying about consistency is that the fact that there is a caniuse entry for ES5 causes one to expect entries for other versions of EcmaScript as well, or at least for EcmaScript features. The fact that there are no entries for these is an unpleasant surprise to the user.

I'm fine with having the ES6 features listed individually as well, as long as there is some sort of documentation for ES6.

One last point:

Caniuse doesn't need to be everything to everyone.

I agree with this statement in and of itself. However, I believe caniuse should strive to document every standard browser feature. The name "caniuse" implies that it is a one-stop source for checking browser support. The user does not expect to only have entries for a certain subset of standard features.

@flyingfisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flyingfisch

flyingfisch Sep 28, 2016

I've just seen this Visualization of Web Platform feature availability by Paul Irish which uses caniuse data exclusively. I think this should further drive home the fact that caniuse is indeed considered a one-stop data source for browser features by many people and that it should strive to be as complete as possible.

flyingfisch commented Sep 28, 2016

I've just seen this Visualization of Web Platform feature availability by Paul Irish which uses caniuse data exclusively. I think this should further drive home the fact that caniuse is indeed considered a one-stop data source for browser features by many people and that it should strive to be as complete as possible.

@bfred-it

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bfred-it

bfred-it Sep 29, 2016

Contributor

I think the discussion has been closed already. Set and WeakSet already appear on Caniuse as links to the Kangax table, so your point that people don't know about it is moot as you didn't even look on caniuse in the first place.

http://caniuse.com/#search=Weakset

Contributor

bfred-it commented Sep 29, 2016

I think the discussion has been closed already. Set and WeakSet already appear on Caniuse as links to the Kangax table, so your point that people don't know about it is moot as you didn't even look on caniuse in the first place.

http://caniuse.com/#search=Weakset

@flyingfisch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flyingfisch

flyingfisch Sep 29, 2016

@bfred-it I understand that, I was talking about the rest of the ES6 features. That said, you are right that this is off-topic conversation, and this issue should probably be closed since it has been implemented.

@bfred-it I understand that, I was talking about the rest of the ES6 features. That said, you are right that this is off-topic conversation, and this issue should probably be closed since it has been implemented.

@bergus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bergus

bergus Jul 6, 2017

+1. Also Map.

bergus commented Jul 6, 2017

+1. Also Map.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment