Greasemonkey recent versions

[SamHall]

Just tried the stable versions, here's what I found...

Greasemonkey 3.3 appears to work well

Greasemonkey 3.4-3.4.1
- Scripts work but are not listed as being available to the website in the Greasemonkey menu

Greasemonkey 3.5+
- TypeError: Cu.cloneInto is not a function @ chrome://greasemonkey-modules/content/sandbox.js:<line number>

[GMforker]

See viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9501

- TypeError: Cu.cloneInto is not a function @ chrome://greasemonkey-modules/content/sandbox.js:<line number>

See https://github.com/MoonchildProductions ... -157632134
...but that's obviously not enough. See https://github.com/janekptacijarabaci/g ... ses/latest - "Comparing changes".
AFAIK: Differences will grow with the time (and it will be unsustainable in the future).

[SamHall]

So it seems janekptacijarabaci is the champion that's currently bringing greasemonkey updates to Pale Moon and Sea Monkey.

When you say "Differences will grow with the time (and it will be unsustainable in the future)". What future are you referring to? Clearly the bulk of existing extensions are either walking abondonware, or will be adopted/branched for Pale Moon support. In the not too distant future, there is no Firefox, there is only Pale Moon. So what future do these extensions have if not for Pale Moon?

[GMforker]

Clearly the bulk of existing extensions are either walking abondonware, or will be adopted/branched for Pale Moon support.

See https://github.com/greasemonkey/greasem ... ssues/2275

"What future are you referring to?"

All versions after the "Big Bang" (Greasemonkey move from XUL to WebExtensions - if so be it...).
Or even earlier.
Fully support ECMAScript 6 in Pale Moon (now that ECMAScript 6 is standard - 06/2015)? MessageManager vs objects (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870180)? Cu.importGlobalProperties (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=920553 , https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1047483, ...)? etc.
The development of Greasemonkey is open ("differences will grow with the time").

But we'll see...

[Moonchild]

Fully support ECMAScript 6 in Pale Moon (now that ECMAScript 6 is standard - 06/2015)?

Nobody fully supports ES6. Far from it, in fact. browsers have various degrees of ES6 adoption, which is why especially for extensions, it will be difficult if devs choose to use bleeding edge implementations unless they focus solely on one browser that they know supports their particular favorite new toy.
Quoting your favorite desired ES6 functions has no use. What is important for Pale Moon when prioritizing is an understanding what is used on the web (that isn't easily polyfilled by the many server-side solutions available) and not what specific extension devs choose to employ.

On top: Even just a fresh standardized specification, it already has a hefty Annex for describing how popular browsers do not stick to the spec and implement things differently. It's not as much of a standard as you may think, and implementations across the board can and will differ. The only advantage we have now is that we can actually use it as a reference without fearing that it will just be changed out from under us on a whim.

A new standard of something as complex as a programming language takes a long time to adopt, to begin with, and people should understand that most of ES6 can be implemented in JS itself (and Pale Moon fully supports ES5 to draw on). How long did it take for the ES6 specification to be accepted as a standard? YEARS. And you expect browsers to be faster on the uptake than that?...
If you are willing to help with this effort of adding more parts of ES6 in Pale Moon, then feel free to submit patches; be aware that you'll be in for a complex coding session if you try to tackle this and it will require persistence, frequent breaks, and probably lots of coffee.

[GMforker]

Nobody fully supports ES6.

I'm sorry. Should I write it differently:
"Fully" support for ECMAScript 6 or Better support for ECMAScript 6

What is important for Pale Moon when prioritizing is an understanding what is used on the web (that isn't easily polyfilled by the many server-side solutions available) and not what specific extension devs choose to employ.

...and so I wrote what I wrote: But we'll see...
It will either make sense or not.

And you expect browsers to be faster on the uptake than that?

No, I do not expect anything.

If you are willing to help with this effort of adding more parts of ES6 in Pale Moon, then feel free to submit patches; be aware that you'll be in for a complex coding session if you try to tackle this and it will require persistence, frequent breaks, and probably lots of coffee.

Unfortunately, currently I have other priorities. Just as you have your own list of priorities.