As far as I can tell from looking through the strawmen, none of those are absolutely necessary and several would just get in the way.
The important stuff has already been added, modules, Object.is, and WeakMaps especially.
With that being said, the @jsfixed team must think something needs to be done, I just wish they had spent any amount of time in this blog post explaining what that is.
I can think of a few things. Today I was needing to get the base domain from a url string and spent entirely too much time writing a function to do it. I wound up using a library called URI.js. But it's insane to me that there isn't a native way to parse a url string in the browser.
It's a hard problem. The reason it is hard is that they have to balance runtime size against the potential value of an addition, against increasing the complexity of the language (Combinatorially- for every feature they have to examine in detail how it interacts with every other feature of the language, which is a lot of work), friendliness to noobs, friendliness to old javascript fans, friendliness to java ruby and python people who hate javascript, etc. etc. For this reason they have focused mainly on features that can't be added with a library for this edition.
The important stuff has already been added, modules, Object.is, and WeakMaps especially.
With that being said, the @jsfixed team must think something needs to be done, I just wish they had spent any amount of time in this blog post explaining what that is.
I can think of a few things. Today I was needing to get the base domain from a url string and spent entirely too much time writing a function to do it. I wound up using a library called URI.js. But it's insane to me that there isn't a native way to parse a url string in the browser.