Optional Strong Typing

J B port25 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 23 10:45:41 PDT 2013

For one, I wouldn't describe strong typing as a "pet feature". Two, no, as
far as I know, most of those languages in that list don't offer macros or
lots of parentheses; and, if they did, then, yeah, maybe it does say

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> In general ECMAScript lacks lots of features. You may well ask why it
> doesn't have any other pet feature, and you can often point to
> compile-to-JS languages that add those. This doesn't imply that the feature
> should be added to the language.
> Here, let me try:
> ---
> I'm aware of LispyScript, as well as all of these:
> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS
> .
> But those languages appear to have been created precisely because
> ECMAScript lacks features like lots of parentheses or macros. How many of
> those languages offer lots of parentheses? I count quite a few... Doesn't
> that say something?
> ---
> The existence of a feature in other languages does not imply it should be
> added to ECMAScript. You'll have to justify better than that why you think
> strong typing would be valuable to a language that has historically
> rejected it. (I'll wait for one of the old timers to chime in about the ES4
> days here.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130823/6d0cea95/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list