Upcoming talk on ES6 in Russia

denom jim.feedback at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 18:22:07 PDT 2013



------ Original Message ------
From: "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick at gmail.com>
To: "denom" <jim.feedback at gmail.com>
Cc: "Axel Rauschmayer" <axel at rauschma.de>; "es-discuss list" 
<es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Sent: 3/24/2013 12:54:43 AM
Subject: Re: Upcoming talk on ES6 in Russia
>
>
>On Saturday, March 23, 2013, denom wrote:
>>Hello Dr. Rauschmayer,
>>
>>Could you plase explain how the slide #23."Object literals" comes in 
>>alingment with slide #7."Challenges of evolving a web language" where 
>>it is written "Preserve nature of JavaScript" ?
>>
>>The method definitions presenteed on #23 voided anything that 
>>JavaScript Object Notation stands for which I consider it is indeed a 
>>basic building block of JavaScript and no nature preserved here.
>
>I suspect you may be conflating Object Literal syntax with JavaScript 
>Object Notation specification—method definitions have never been part 
>of the latter.
>
I don't know in which version of Object Literal definition are you 
referring but mine goes like this; "An object literal is a list of zero 
or more pairs of property names and associated values of an object, 
enclosed in curly braces ({})."
Source : 
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/JavaScript/Guide/Values,_variables,_and_literals#Object_literals 
which I believe you specifically
>>A mixture of named fucntions, voidance of key/value pairs, and 
>>property values shorthand seems like a soup of a little bit of 
>>everything and a soup was never a good friend of maintenability of the 
>>code. This is monsterous.
>
>The affordance of redundancy removal is actually really fantastic for 
>maintainability ;)
>
There is nothing that can be afforded here really. :) And how 
maintainability gets something out of it?

You are attempting to stuff so many things in an object literar that 
after writting few lines of code inside it you wont even realize that 
you are in an object literal. Hopefully only a trailing comma on the end 
of each line will make you suspect it.

The worst is that the Homogeneity of JavaScript is cracking widely and 
that allows developers to split into dogmas between old and new 
specifications which will want to enforce on projects and is something 
to be expected. Jumping from one project to another will be like 
switching between different programming languages at some deegree. 
Everybody have seen this already with coffeescript (which is kinda cool) 
but moving to that direction and splitting the JavaScript developers 
further into groups/dogmas is just not affordable and I can not 
understand the difficulty some people face comprehending it.

>
>>
>>I see lots of drafts and proposals tend to be from people used to 
>>write C(*)/Java or CoffeeScript
>
>Can you cite a reference for this claim?

A reference?? Here.

Arrow functions (C# LINQ) : var squares = numbers.forEach(e => e*e );
You can easily run the same code in C#.

Destructing Assigment (CoffeeScript), here is a short tutorial 
http://blog.carbonfive.com/2011/09/28/destructuring-assignment-in-coffeescript/

Ruby recently (v. 2.0.0) implemented default parameter values as well 
like this is proposed in here as well.

Classes --> Need to say more?

Now , reffering to the above doesn't mean I am against of everything. I 
am just making a point that influence from other languages is strong but 
JavaScript is already a well established language(and probably the most 
widely used) so no need to reinvent everything here and carry every 
legacy that some sets of contributors got by programming in other 
languages just because is more comfortable for them. Improve the 
existing language and respect conventions,notations and syntax of the 
JavaScript.

It will end up as a bastard chaotic set of something different than 
JavaScript that none will fully understand when, what and how to use.

Finally I am really sorry that I had to writte all these in a mail that 
was not meant for this purpose.
>
>Rick
>
>>which is adopted only by a small subset of JavaScript developers who 
>>are mainly Rubyists. The fact that some things seem to them as 
>>'acceptable' doesn't mean that comfort with the JavaScript standards 
>>and conventions. JavaScript,like all other languages, is not a 
>>language to that fits to everyone.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Dimitris K.
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>From: "Axel Rauschmayer" <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 
>>'axel at rauschma.de');>
>>To: "es-discuss list" <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 
>>'es-discuss at mozilla.org');>
>>Sent: 3/23/2013 6:37:38 PM
>>Subject: Upcoming talk on ES6 in Russia
>>>On March 30, I’ll hold a talk on ECMAScript 6 at CodeFest 2013 in 
>>>Novosibirsk [1] where I hope to convince people that they have 
>>>something to look forward to.
>>>
>>>A draft of my slides is here, feedback welcome:
>>>http://dl.2ality.com/codefest_es6.pdf
>>>
>>>[1] http://2013.codefest.ru/
>>>
>>>--
>>>Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>>>javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'axel at rauschma.de');
>>>
>>>home: rauschma.de
>>>twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
>>>blog: 2ality.com
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130324/83e87044/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list