Polyfills for dependencies
jamiebuilds opened this issue · 2 comments
jamiebuilds commented
@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).
- 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
sindresorhus commented
Agreed
lacymorrow commented
Yes, I will say that Ponyfills are quite clever for graceful degradation. Support everything. It's our job.