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

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon May 9 18:04:46 PDT 2011

On May 7, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Jorge wrote:

> But if I wanted a shorter syntax, I would no doubt choose ruby blocks' syntax, it's even shorter yet and it's familiar already to millions of programmers.

Ruby and Smalltalk before it had blocks for most of their usable lives. JS does not. Having break, continue, return, this, arguments, and perhaps other features of JS change meaning in a block to refer to aspects of the outer function's activation (if still active) is a big change. It adds new runtime error cases. It's certainly not simpler than shorter function syntax.

Not all JS hackers are Rubyists.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list