Function syntax

Alex Russell alex at dojotoolkit.org
Sat May 21 10:38:53 PDT 2011


On May 21, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:

> Alex,
> 
> That is not what I wrote at all because I didn't write the "it could be better".
> 
> The analogy that Nathan was making does not apply to JavaScript. He
> wrote that C# delegates were not popular in C# 2.0. Functions are
> already popular in JavaScript.

So you were only arguing that his analogy was flawed in that the cause of the current proposal isn't under-use but rather problems borne from over-use? Fair enough. It's not an argument against the proposal, then, and I misread it. Apologies.

> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Alex Russell <alex at dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, this this argument is entirely circular:
>> 
>>  - we have something that works
>>  - it could be better
>>  - but it works, so we don't need anything better
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> On May 21, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Nathan Stott <nrstott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Having worked a lot with C#, my experience was that very very few
>>>> people used the C# 2.0 delegate syntax and now a large portion of the
>>>> community learned and uses the C# 3.0 syntax.  Syntax matters.
>>> 
>>> JavaScript functions have not suffered neglect due to the length of
>>> their syntax. Function expressions are already wildly popular in
>>> JavaScript. So this C# data does not really support the necessity for
>>> change in JavaScript.

--
Alex Russell
slightlyoff at google.com
slightlyoff at chromium.org
alex at dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723



More information about the es-discuss mailing list