| 04:42 | <Lea Verou> | Pardon my ignorance on this, are there any current proposals on class mixins? This came up in a web components issue (around custom attributes) |
| 07:52 | <Ashley Claymore> | There's this one: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-mixins |
| 08:16 | <Michael Ficarra> | mixins would be harmful IMO |
| 08:31 | <Ashley Claymore> | Above slides are from https://github.com/tc39/proposal-first-class-protocols (I assume) |
| 11:51 | <ljharb> | +1 https://legacy.reactjs.org/blog/2016/07/13/mixins-considered-harmful.html |
| 16:07 | <Michael Ficarra> | mixins: not even once |
| 16:11 | <Lea Verou> | Thanks Ashley Claymore ! ljharb haha, I suspected there would be strong opinions, I have some of my own too, might write a blog post at some point |
| 16:12 | <Michael Ficarra> | @Lea Verou share a link if you do |
| 16:12 | <Lea Verou> | Will do, though I suspect it will be a while before I get to it. There's a backlog of blog posts I want to write :P |
| 16:17 | <ryzokuken> | The JS devroom in FOSDEM has opened their CFP! https://pretalx.fosdem.org/fosdem-2025/cfp |
| 16:51 | <Chris de Almeida> | wen protocols |
| 17:10 | <Michael Ficarra> | @Chris de Almeida if you can drum up and/or demonstrate community support, I'll put time into it |
| 17:10 | <Michael Ficarra> | right now, I'm focussing on more popular proposals |
| 17:11 | <Chris de Almeida> | am I not community enough for you? 😢 |
| 17:11 | <Michael Ficarra> | ... no |
| 17:11 | <Chris de Almeida> | lol |
| 17:11 | <littledan> | right now, I'm focussing on more popular proposals |
| 17:12 | <Chris de Almeida> | I'm curious how you judge this |
| 17:13 | <Michael Ficarra> | I'm curious how you judge this |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | I've been working a lot on iterator-related proposals because, aside from me personally finding them useful, they are both viable and always get a lot of positive reactions from the community |
| 17:14 | <Michael Ficarra> | not too many things in that overlap |
| 17:33 | <ljharb> | i think protocols is something lots of people would be excited about, but it's had no movement in like 6 years |
| 17:33 | <ljharb> | people are pretty excited about signals and protocols feel even more broadly applicable than signals |
| 17:40 | <Anthony Bullard> | Signals have a lot of energy around them because of the positive impact they are having on nearly all front end frameworks (sans React). I dont know how many individual application-level problems protocols would solve in the eyes of the bulk of developers. This is why I discussed the importance of interfacing with the community during the proposal process, doing so will probably increase the quality of the proposal and uncover questions that may not have been asked - and earlier. |
| 18:16 | <Chris de Almeida> | well, good thing it's not a zero-sum game |
| 18:16 | <Chris de Almeida> | I would submit that it is easy to see the utility of object composition |
| 18:20 | <Michael Ficarra> | well, good thing it's not a zero-sum game |
| 18:21 | <Chris de Almeida> | even if true, we should not presume we are dead in the water |
| 18:21 | <Michael Ficarra> | oh I definitely don't think it's dead, I just want to have some momentum behind it before I sink my time into it |
| 18:21 | <Chris de Almeida> | sure, I get it |
| 18:22 | <Michael Ficarra> | it's a bit of a catch-22, I know |
| 18:22 | <Chris de Almeida> | my comment was about signals vs protocols being a false dichotomy |
| 18:23 | <shu> | what is the game |
| 18:23 | <shu> | if it's people's time, that is a zero-sum game |
| 18:25 | <Chris de Almeida> | to be clear -- it's not as if we are being forced to choose either signals or protocols, and then that's the end of the other proposal. I regret that the comparison was made, because this is a distraction |
| 18:26 | <shu> | anyway Anthony Bullard's point is a good one |
| 18:26 | <shu> | argue from tangible benefits and impacts |
| 18:28 | <Anthony Bullard> | Chris de Almeida: to be clear, I was just giving my perspective on why the disparity in excitement for the two proposals |