bbenvie at mozilla.com
Fri Aug 16 14:31:00 PDT 2013
On 8/16/2013 2:08 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Actually, I think it'd be fantastic to have an easy way to communicate required parameters in an options object.
I agree and this is why I was a fan of Axel's +/! "this is required" prefix.
One of the reason's JS is so popular is because hard failure is opt-in.
That is: by default the language will not punish you for mistakes made
as a noob/while developing. You can access a non-existent property, for
example, without it destroying the whole program. This is, of course,
also a source of subtle and hard to diagnose bugs. But, on balance, I
think it's worth it for what JS is meant to do.
That doesn't mean we can't have opt-in strictness, though. This is why I
love Axel's proposal: you *can* opt-in for strictness and get the
guarantees you want. This is the same reason TypeScript exists, and has
gained such a following. TypeScript is to ECMAScript as refutable
destructuring is to Axel's proposal.
More information about the es-discuss