Exemplar forms (was Your search - "|>" - did not match any documents)
raynos2 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 14 10:12:49 PDT 2011
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM, John J Barton
<johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
>> Let me take a crack at tying to tie together all the pieces we have been
>> talking about.
> Allen, I really appreciate your synthesis, thanks. I am able to follow some
> of it because of my recent Q/A with the group. I think many more people
> would be able to follow it if the approximate semantics of new features
> where readily accessible. Maybe just an parenthetical explanation and a link
> to the strawman page (these are pretty daunting however).
I believe the following links may aid in explaining some of the content
- ES:Harmony Object Literals
- Axel's prototypes as classes
> <lots of interesting text elided>
>> This is a more complicated tory then simply having a traditional class
>> model such as Dart is using. However, we have an existing language with
>> existing featuures with a wide range of usages patterns so whatever we do
>> with "classes" we still have to accommodate what currently exists in JS. We
>> are never going to have as simple a story as a do-over language such as
>> Dart. But I do think we can craft a understandable story where all the
>> pieces fit together relatively nicely.
> I really like this perspective, with two caveats:
> 1) To achieve the goal of "Keep the language pleasant for casual
> developers.", the correspondence between JS and traditional class models
> needs to be real, clear, and communicated well. Points of disconnect need to
> be ironed out. The danger of saying "class" and meaning something different
> are great but the dangers of saying Grawlix include no one caring about the
> 2) Your proposal is dominated by declarative syntax for objects, in
> contrast to practice which uses functions to construct objects. Of course it
> is possible that your new features would obsolete that practice, but I doubt
> it. By design the declarative syntax creates limits on objects that are
> simple to overcome with direct manipulation.
I believe the use of declarative syntax is to get semantics across in a
terse well specified manner. All of his declarative syntax has existing
alternatives available we can use currently using methods. I don't think any
of the declarative syntax has limits.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss