I didn’t believe this so I tried it. It’s true. Wild.

So it's ads masquerading as cookie consent?

Firefox is optimized against speedometer and similar "real world" benchmarks. This is a list of highly artificial benchmarks. Mozilla could attempt to optimize it for these benchmarks, but it wouldn't do much to make the web browsing experience better.

Basically lack of human resources to make it great, note that Firefox is already around 3% market share, and Mozilla keeps having other priorities.

Mozilla has their priorities ass backwards and does anything except what prople actually want: developing Firefox.

No wonder my Firefox feels sluggish compared to Chrome on M3. Sigh.

The way the array is constructed at least leads to holey arrays in V8. Perhaps similar in other implementations. The performance characteristics between different array types may vary significantly as well. Still, the traditional for loop, counting upwards seems to be fastest for me across Chrome and Firefox on Linux. For-of is slowest by a wide margin.

There is always going to be a big gap between a browser that had a particular optimization, and one where it is absent.

But, browsers are an odd case where optimizations often prove not to be worth it on real world websites. The cost to optimize can easily exceed the savings.

They don't seem to like generators either, which is even stranger. Why block the usage of features which might be useful in some cases?

I know. Which is why I completely got rid of airbnb rules in my personal projects or projects that I control. I wasted so much time fighting those stupid rules instead of actually writing code.

It’s mostly the argument of a single guy (ljharb), who has very strong and weird opinions.

There were several extremely long and unproductive GitHub discussion with him posted to HN before, where he sent unsolicited and unwanted PRs to lots of projects that tanked performance by orders of magnitude and introduced tens of dependencies (he wrote himself), to ensure that projects would be backwards compatible with completely irrelevant targets they never supported in the first place (like Internet Explorer 1.3 under Windows 95 or something along those lines).

When projects did not want to take these contributions, he played his TC39 authority card, and when that did not help became more and more incoherent in his ramblings.

My take is that this guy actually wants to and thinks he is doing good, while actually having lost the plot a while ago.

> Their only argument for not supporting eg. "for-of" is because of "legacy" browsers not supporting it.

Not really, their rational is written in the document I linked --

    Why? This enforces our immutable rule. Dealing with pure functions that return values is easier to reason about than side effects.

    // bad
    let sum = 0;
    for (let num of numbers) {
      sum += num;
    }
    sum === 15;

    // good
    let sum = 0;
    numbers.forEach((num) => {
      sum += num;
    });
    sum === 15;

In addition, I think an issue is that for a long time, when you use ESLint CLI to create a new config file, airbnb is the default option, which ends up making it used very widely, even after the config itself is in maintenance mode. They were only removed in 2024: https://github.com/eslint/create-config/pull/108

> I just gave up and accepted it

> lets everyone move past discussing such details in perpetuity

That's definitely a reasonable attitude towards coding standards generally. However, in this case, there are "better" eslint rules out there that flags real, serious issues but still allows you to be productive, which is what I end up using.

> do your own profiling and consider your own targets before blindly accepting a one-size-fits-all configuration for your linter

Too bad ESLint has been recommending airbnb as the style until 2024. You can't expect everyone to start with nothing and hand pick every rule themselves. Doable for a large organization, not possible for a personal project.

https://github.com/eslint/create-config/pull/108

Thanks... the vast majority of my own experience has been a combination of line of business, banking, security and govt applications outside of scientific heavy circles, so was a genuine question, despite the downvotes.

100% / 92% / ~32% (forget exactly on this one) for for-of, classic, forEach for me, on a Ryzen 5700 AMD desktop. Other things running, not a fantastic test, but I did turn the cooling system up ahead of running. This defied my expectations & I had to try & see!

Side note, I am fantastically glad to see at least some kind of online javascript benchmarking site is alive again. https://jsperf.com was so good to us for so many years. Obviously there's flaws but the way that it not just was a benchmark site but also would record folks results & aggregate them was incredibly incredibly incredibly fantastically sweet.

Got similar results but then tested on an older win10 i5 system (8+ years old?) chrome 145 and get variable results but classic is always about twice foreach or forof and foreach often performs 2x better than forof. I fear this might be more connected to CPUs than anything.

> here are annoying off-by-one errors

These barely if ever happen for simple iterations, it's an idee fixe. Off-by-one sneak in when trying to do something special, and then a for-on loop is useless anyway.

> Symbol.iterator interface

I get it, but it's unnecessary abstraction to overgeneralize a vanilla array to an iterable.

anyway, for..of is not an issue, it's alright. I think if there's one main point i'm trying to make, is that devs will write objectively worse code base on gut wants (in this case, obsession to use higer level abstractions to iterate over an array).

In fairness, at least this way it allows you to make an informed choice to leave immediately if you so wish, thus avoiding leaving more behavioural data or the like. The banner is not compliant, but it is better than doing it silently.

Just wait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Armenia_to_the_Eu...

If they didn’t care about those laws, they wouldn’t need the notice. Since they do, they do.

Why are you even mad? This doesn’t affect you, it is not directed at you, and is trying to be a helpful clarification to the author. If they care about compliance, presumably they care about doing it right.

> Despite what many EU citizens may think, EU laws don't apply to the world.

I’m a EU citizen living in the EU and have never encountered or heard of anyone with that belief.