es-discuss Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5

Peter Michaux petermichaux at
Sat May 7 09:31:54 PDT 2011

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl at> wrote:
> I believe that David Bruant has a good point. We *need* a shorter syntax
> because we advocate the use of map/reduce, etc., which require simple
> anonymous functions.

No. We don't "need" syntactic sugar. The current function syntax is
working and we are talking a few characters difference, not hundreds.

Map/reduce don't "require" syntactic sugar.

You may "want" shorter syntax but we've been getting by well without
it. I think framing it as a "need" or a "requirement" is dishonest to
the discussion.

> As to why we should choose # rather than coffescript's ->, there are two points:

[long discussion ensues based on taste]

There are so many more important issues to address.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list