kamkasravi at yahoo.com
Thu May 19 11:12:09 PDT 2011
I also tend to agree with this sentiment, despite having loved operator overloading in C++.
recent proposed operator syntax variations would seem to be better delegated to a transpiler of your choice.
IMHO a better approach would be to minimize operator overloading in the current grammar
and standardize an extensible grammar model/framework so that coffeescript, traceur and cousins
are more easily produced and transpiled to a simple (if not verbose) target. Having a common grammar
framework based on PEG's or something with similar characteristics (closed under composition, scannerless,
ordered choice) and standardized among browser vendors would allow far more developers to innovate
at the grammar level with the most popular or innovative grammar dialects being crafted by many rather than a few.
From: David Griffiths <dxgriffiths at gmail.com>
To: johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Cc: es-discuss at mozilla.org
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:46 AM
Subject: Function syntax
I agree with John, here, and think his sentiment is probably the most appropriate of all I've read.
It's worth remembering that nobody, no matter how well-intentioned, can ever really imagine what it's like to be more stupid or more ignorant than they currently are.
John J. Barton wrote:
> Both application developers and library/framework developers benefit
> from clear, widely understandable code. Adding bizarre special
> characters and programming constructs that require world-class
> programming language expertise to understand helps neither group. > jjb
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss