arrow syntax unnecessary and the idea that "function" is too long

Kyle Simpson getify at gmail.com
Fri May 6 23:02:37 PDT 2011


> Many people, including me, would disagree. On matters of taste, I'd want 
> the committee to listen to all interested parties and try to pick the 
> solution that pleases the most people. That appears to be what's happening 
> here.

Based on what evidence are "we" concluding that the majority of the 
javascript developers want -> syntax for functions? The fact that 
coffeescript is the hot buzzword? Was there some developer-community wide 
voting or poll that I missed? Or is it that a few vocal people on these 
lists like it, and that's being substituted as what the "majority" is in 
favor of?

I'm not just being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, on this and a variety of 
other matters related to what's being added to ES-next/harmony... It's clear 
Brendan (and other language cohorts) likes these new syntax sugars, but 
where is the evidence that suggests that all this new syntax sugar is the 
exact sugar that javascript developers want? Is it just enough that everyone 
at JSConf likes it, and thus that means that the whole community is assumed 
to be on board?

There's LOTS of examples where writing less JavaScript is more awesomer, but 
there's also plenty of examples of where writing less is much more uglier. I 
am troubled by the implication that just because we've found a shorter 
syntax sugar for functions, this unequivocally means it's better.

-> syntax being shorter is a clear and objective question. No doubt it's 
shorter. But is is prettier or more readable? According to who's opinion do 
we conclude that, because that seems pretty subjective.

--Kyle

 



More information about the es-discuss mailing list