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

Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Tue May 17 10:50:56 PDT 2011


On May 17, 2011, at 4:57, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:

> The goal of pleasing compiler writers should be
> to make it possible to compile existing languages like Perl, Ruby,
> Python and Scheme to JavaScript. These languages are the ones that
> people know and really want to use and target their compilers to
> JavaScript.


You sound like you really hate JavaScript and can’t imagine working with it unless some other language is compiled to it.

I’ve programmed quite a bit of Perl, Python, and Scheme and found that once you get to know the proverbial “good parts” of JavaScript, it can be quite elegant. That is, I don’t miss either of these three languages, except maybe for Python’s runtime library (and Java’s tools, but that’s a different topic).

With the increasing momentum behind JavaScript, IMHO the primary goal should be to improve the language for people who actually want to program in it. This is difficult enough, given all the parties that have to be pleased. Listening to feedback from compiler writers should be a secondary goal.

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer

axel at rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma

home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110517/a152cfc5/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list