@tomayac I’m late to the game here, but to me this essentially sounds like a call to action to apply and embrace the #extensibleWebManifesto in the TC39 process?

That the core functionality should focus on enabling things that otherwise wouldn’t be possible to implement elsewhere while high level functions can be kept out of the core?

So JS remains JS and JSSugar is simply a standardization of syntax sugars, not of any polyfills, right?

Wrote more here: https://mastodon.social/@voxpelli/113339222276926945

All in all: Cautiously optimistic about #JS0 / #JSSugar but feeling that:

1. This is nothing new, it’s just a call/reminder to the TC39 to embrace the #extensibleWeb approach to new additions
2. Calling it JS0 rather than JS was really bad and made eg me defensive about it all
3. The focus on transpilation is bad if JSSugar is meant to embrace more than syntax only features

#extensibleWebManifesto

5/5

@slightlyoff @tomayac @sereeena Privacy is one of the primary areas where the #ExtensibleWebManifesto bottoms out higher than usual. I haven't deeply reviewed this element, but it's plausible that we'd want something with inherent UI before or instead of doing something purely imperative.

Even if the team has made a mistake here, we need to engage respectfully and constructively to channel them i toward a better direction. "None of this makes sense" isn't a good start to that.