| 00:36 | <sachag> | I've made some progress on the State of JS 2024 survey: https://github.com/Devographics/surveys/issues/252 |
| 00:37 | <sachag> | I'm wondering if we could also ask what people think about the recent JS0/JSSugar proposal |
| 00:37 | <sachag> | and also more generally about implementing types in JavaScript |
| 04:30 | <bakkot> | based on what I've read of the discourse, I doubt you'll be able to get people to understand the JS0/JSSugar proposal well enough for people to meaningfully have opinions on it as opposed to some other thing they made up in their heads |
| 05:00 | <Sacha Greif> | I don't think it's within the survey's scope to explain the proposal, it's more about polling people who already have an opinion about it |
| 05:10 | <rkirsling> | why would it be anything but harmful to collect people's opinions on their imagined interpretation of a thing |
| 05:17 | <ljharb> | since virtually nobody outside the committee has a correct understanding of it, i'm not sure what value their opinions would have |
| 05:27 | <Sacha Greif> | I guess now is not a great time to defend people's right to vote for things even when they're misinformed huh… |
| 05:28 | <Sacha Greif> | changing gears, what about this? |
| 05:28 | <Sacha Greif> | I tried to come up with a list based on the latest Stage 3 proposals, but I'm happy to tweak it |
| 05:28 | <Sacha Greif> | this question's role is to make people aware of what's coming down the pike |
| 05:32 | <ljharb> | (surveys aren't voting for things :-p ) |
| 05:32 | <ljharb> | some of the items on that list aren't stage 3 tho |
| 05:33 | <Sacha Greif> | yes, it's not a 100% match |
| 05:33 | <Sacha Greif> | more of a grab bag of things people might potentially be excited about |
| 05:34 | <Meghan Denny> | what signal would u be hoping to achieve by having this question |
| 05:34 | <Sacha Greif> | help people get a feel for what features might be coming in the next couple years? |
| 05:40 | <ljharb> | that's part of the problem tho, whenever anyone implies that stage < 3 features might be coming at all, let alone in the next couple years, they might end up getting disappointed. for example, pipe has been stuck at its current stage for years and it's unclear what it would take to ever unstick it |
| 05:41 | <ljharb> | like, past surveys have had something like "static types", and then people look at the results and think "we should get types!" and then they look at the type annotation proposal and think they're getting types - but the proposal isn't static types, and the proposal's stuck at stage 1 without a clear path forward (imo) |
| 05:42 | <ljharb> | but also "help people get a feel" kind of conflicts with I don't think it's within the survey's scope to explain the proposal, no? |
| 05:44 | <ljharb> | is the survey teaching people things, or just gathering their opinion about things? if the latter, then it seems like you'd want to list every proposal, not just a sampling |
| 05:44 | <Sacha Greif> | it's both |
| 05:45 | <ljharb> | then why isn't in the survey's scope to somewhat explain proposals, so that survey takers have appropriate context? |
| 05:45 | <ljharb> | (i don't actually have a mental model of what it "should" be, just that it's a bummer when people get misled into thinking stalled or unlikely proposals are imminent, or when they get a misunderstanding of what a proposal is) |
| 05:46 | <Sacha Greif> | well, it's a two-phase process. when people are taking the survey I usually try to keep it light because I don't want extra explanations to slow people down and potentially lead them to abandon the survey altogether |
| 05:46 | <Sacha Greif> | when people are viewing the results though I can definitely add more details and explanations |
| 05:46 | <Sacha Greif> | and links |
| 05:47 | <Sacha Greif> | for example the recent State of CSS 2024 survey results had these little cards which even included Baseline info |
| 05:48 | <Sacha Greif> |
I think just listing every Stage 3 proposal in that question could totally work |
| 05:49 | <Sacha Greif> |
and I can also filter out any proposals/features that fit this criteria |
| 05:54 | <ljharb> | basically anything < 2.7. things that are 2.7 are pretty safe to rely on generally |
| 07:30 | <Sacha Greif> | would you be able to suggest a good list in https://github.com/Devographics/surveys/issues/252 ? |
| 15:17 | <littledan> | basically anything < 2.7. things that are 2.7 are pretty safe to rely on generally |
| 15:25 | <littledan> | so Stage 3 is a sense of the stable proposals. However, those are already the things we decided to do, so I'm not sure what we need the input for. |
| 15:25 | <littledan> | when someone writes tests, that adds to the stability and ensures that everything is well thought through. |
| 15:28 | <littledan> | I think input on earlier stage proposals would be a good idea. The idea is to get direction from the JS community, not just confirmation on decisions that we already made |
| 15:29 | <littledan> | However, asking about JSSugar/JS0 is probably a bit premature, since we don't really know what that will look like |
| 15:30 | <littledan> | How long do we have to give feedback on the state of JS? It'd be nice if TC39 can somehow consider this collectively, rather than one-off people like me just asserting my feelings about what should be done. |
| 15:53 | <Michael Ficarra> | @Sacha Greif if you want help preparing a survey/study, that's what TG5 is for, you should reach out to them https://github.com/tc39/tg5 |
| 16:14 | <bakkot> | I thought the idea of naming it Stage 2.7 was that Stage 3 is still the signal of "pretty safe/stable" |
| 16:15 | <bakkot> | we expect to find things in 2.7 along the lines of "this should do these operations in a different order" or "this needs to handle some input differently" or whatever |
| 17:44 | <Ashley Claymore> | I would presume the most likely breaking change in stage 3 are the names, due to web compat issue discovery. Maybe second most likely would be changing a property to be a getter/setter to avoid the override mistake. |
| 17:45 | <ljharb> | what i meant with my comment was, users can generally expect 2.7+ features to be a thing in the language in the short to medium term |
| 17:46 | <ljharb> | stage < 2 features, especially, might not be a thing in the language ever, let alone in the short to medium term, and it's helpful to avoid mis-setting people's expectations |
| 18:05 | sirisian | looks at do expressions. "He's talking about other proposals. You're fine." |
| 18:21 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, agreed, 2.7 is "stable" in the sense of "very likely to show up", tho I agree with littledan on the other notion of stability. |