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

Thaddee Tyl thaddee.tyl at gmail.com
Sat May 7 09:56:22 PDT 2011


On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl at gmail.com> 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.

It is not a requirement, indeed. I feel like it is a need, however.
JavaScript is still seen as a badly object-oriented programming
language by those who still think it is java with a weird syntax. I do
hope it grows to be known as an outstanding functional programming
language. Thanks to ES5's strict mode, it now gets freed from the
"this" issue, for those that use it.

Huffmanization requires that we reduce the size of what we want to use
often. If we want to use more functions, then it isn't just eleven
less characters once in a while, it becomes a bigger deal!

> There are so many more important issues to address.

If you feel like addressing more important issues, I warmly beg you to do so!


More information about the es-discuss mailing list