You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ponyfills should absolutely be encouraged, I think there's plenty of benefits to using them. However, there's a valid use case of polyfills that gets ignored:
When you have nested dependencies that have less backwards support than you do they won't use ponyfills/polyfills. Now you can't use that particular dependency without using a full polyfill unless you fork the dependency (which could also be several deps deep).
I think package authors should be encouraged to use ponyfills longer than everyone else
I think polyfills should be limitedly encouraged as the correct solution to that particular problem
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@ljharb brought this up in TC39 the other day...
Ponyfills should absolutely be encouraged, I think there's plenty of benefits to using them. However, there's a valid use case of polyfills that gets ignored:
When you have nested dependencies that have less backwards support than you do they won't use ponyfills/polyfills. Now you can't use that particular dependency without using a full polyfill unless you fork the dependency (which could also be several deps deep).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: