> sacrificed to the altar of "web compatibility."
What should they have done instead? Force everybody to detect browser versions and branch based on that, like in the olden days of IE5?
(Serious question, maybe I'm overlooking some smart trick.)
Browsers should version their languages. They should say "if you use <html version="5.2"> or bigger, this is the behavior".
Somehow, the standard groups decided to remove the versioning that was there.
The decided not to have it there because they didn't like the idea of maintaining version 4.0 forever in their engines.
That's basically why they never did anything like "use strict" again.
IMO, that's a bad choice. Giving yourself the ability to have new behavior and features based on a version is pretty natural and how most programming languages evolve. Having perpetual backwards and fowards compatibility at all times is both hard to maintain and makes it really hard to fix old mistakes.
The only other reason they might have chosen this route is because it's pretty hard to integrate the notion of compatibility levels into minifiers.
Nah, that's not a "sacrifice", but the only sane way. In the ideal case, clearly document the constructor with a warning that it's not ISO conformant and offer a ISO conformant alternative.
In my (unfortunate) experience, DateTime/Timezone handling is one of the things most prone to introduce sneaky, but far-reaching bugs as it is. Introducing such a behaviour change that (usually) won't fail-fast, will often seemingly continue working as before until it doesn't and is deceptively tricky to debug/pinpoint/fix ist just asking for a fast lane into chaos.
And even with JS going the extra mile on backwards compatibility, I don't think most other languages would introduce that kind of breaking change in that way either.
The control interface burned into your hardware device will not have been rewritten. And it's not like you can have a flag day where everyone switches over, so the lifespan of those hardware devices isn't that relevant.
Backwards compatibility is a large part of the point of the Web.
You could version everything at whatever granularity you like, but over time that accumulates ("bug 3718938: JS gen24 code incorrectly handles Date math as if it were gen25-34", not to mention libraries that handle some versions but not others and then implicitly pass their expectations around via the objects they create so your dependency resolver has to look at the cross product of versions from all your depencies...)
I agree with the "don't break the web" design principle, but I sometimes disagree with precisely where TC39 draws the line. There is obviously a cost to breaking old, unchanging websites. But there's also a cost to allowing old, unchanging websites to hold the entire web hostage. Balancing those costs is a subjective matter.
As far as I know, TC39 doesn't have any clear guidelines about how many websites or how many users must be affected in order to reject a proposed change to JavaScript behavior. Clearly there are breaking changes that are so insignificant that TC39 should ignore them (imagine a website with some JavaScript that simply iterates over every built-in API and crashes if any of them ever change).