I wish this contained a delta between the previous release and this release. It's difficult to find the differences just by skimming.<p>Edit: apparently I hadn't realized that the changes were so few that what was in the outline really did cover everything. I thought it was a summation. My fault.<p>That being said I continue to be disappointed in the built-in standard library of JavaScript. As far as I can tell ECMAScript 2017 also has zero plans for incorporating useful libraries for file IO or sockets (currently both are provided through different APIs by node or the browser). This really needs to happen.
So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Visual Studio. VS 2015 is the current version but VS 15 is the next one.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript</a>
As always, see <a href="https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/" rel="nofollow">https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/</a> for the up-to-date spec that implementers use.
"This specification also includes support for a new exponentiation operator and adds a new method to Array.prototype called includes."<p>Not much new here for regular JavaScript developers.
They should be working to make JS smaller and simpler and better. Focus on the philosophy of what JS should be. People instead tend to focus on 'new features'.<p>The power in JS is functional programming. For instance, grafting on Classes, was a mistake. They may focus on concepts like, how do we make sure we never create two ways to do the same thing - instead of how do we incorporate this new thing.
Does anyone know if decorators made it in? I can't find them via the search at first glance. I'm guessing they're listed under a different name/section than I thought?
Why don't they "fix" the numeric system to be more exact? I'm talking about the float implementation. I don't think anyone depends on the floating point rounding errors. But we do spend a lot of time avoiding them. They totally "screwed up" the syntax in 2015, with many breaking changes, so why not fix the damn rounding errors!?