arrow syntax unnecessary and the idea that "function" is too long
petermichaux at gmail.com
Sat May 7 09:08:32 PDT 2011
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that this is what compilers and projects like coffeescript are
> This argument comes up time and again: "We don't need to make
improvements but it has "good" covered.
> just a good compilation
I did not write that it needs to be "just a good compilation target."
I don't use a compiler to enable me to write source in another
areas where the language could use features it does not have at all
more capable language.
> I think it's really wrong-headed.
> language used by millions of people as a programming language, and we
> should give them a great language to program in.
for "even better" but the arrow syntax isn't even a significant
contribution to this cause. Real features would be. A weak map, for
example, is a great idea because we just cannot do anything like that
now without implementing our own garbage collection.
> as source rather than target has been a huge enabler of the Web as an
> open platform, which I certainly don't want to move away from. So,
> even though we've worked hard in the module system to better support
That wasn't one of Brendan's stated goals; however, it is a good goal.
I think the arrow syntax is not helpful in this goal.
>> For example, a real "lambda" with guaranteed proper tail calls, no
>> "arguments", no need for "return", etc would make is possible to
>> trampolines. It would also open up recursive programming options in
> And hey, it turns out we've done this too -- at least with the -> syntax. :)
It has been confirmed that the arrow syntax is *only* syntactic sugar
for existing function syntax. That means introducing the arrow syntax
More information about the es-discuss