2025-06-04 [14:29:17.0809] people interested in TabAtkins 's Random proposals may enjoy these slides from a talk about the deficiencies of C++'s `` https://codingnest.com/files/What%20Went%20Wrong%20With%20_random__.pdf [14:29:43.0730] I don't think any of it's directly applicable, except insofar as it describes mistakes which we are not currently making [14:29:48.0354] but still interesting reading [15:59:01.0154] Yeah, very happy to see how much we're dodging all of these issues, nice. 2025-06-05 [17:57:03.0777] yeah let's not go patting ourselves on the back until we've endured decades of scrutiny [18:00:23.0591] ah, and here's the talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKk6J3CgE80 2025-06-07 [06:45:30.0318] Thanks. I'll definitely have to check this out. 2025-06-08 [18:12:17.0706] > <@michaelficarra:matrix.org> yeah let's not go patting ourselves on the back until we've endured decades of scrutiny I have never made a mistake in any of my fifteen years of standardization. Pay no mind to the "list of mistakes in CSS" wiki page that has grown continuously since I've been working on the language. 2025-06-09 [08:27:37.0731] maybe we need a similar wiki article [09:50:36.0970] consensus on what's a mistake might be tricky tho [09:57:17.0183] yeah, we can't even get consensus that thenables were a mistake last I checked [09:57:48.0848] though arguably our new consensus to avoid aggressive coercion constitutes consensus that it was a mistake [09:58:12.0878] consensus minus the person who made the mistake should be significantly easier to obtain [09:58:17.0889] lol [09:58:28.0026] also I think everyone agrees that we're never touching Object.prototype, which is maybe consensus that it was a mistake [09:59:15.0922] yeah our new normative conventions are definitely admissions, whether we were aware of that or not [10:14:30.0885] there's definitely some things we'll all agree are a mistake :-) but also lots we won't [10:14:40.0252] cough cough regexp symbols 2025-06-10 [08:15:40.0792] I have seized your infographic for redistribution, comrade. (I give a TC39 update a couple times a year at an all-IBM meeting and this is neater than my existing/previous slide on stages.) Thank you 🙏 2025-06-17 [05:27:10.0730] hey all, i'd like to propose standard behavior for optional module imports to replace `try { require(...) } catch { ... }` by specifying `import ... with { optional: true }` for es modules. is this the place to discuss such proposals? [05:33:56.0781] For detailed discussion, https://es.discourse.group/ is probably better. [06:31:32.0644] thanks for letting me know :) i've opened https://es.discourse.group/t/optional-imports-using-import-attributes/2385 for discussion