what kind of problem is this fat arrow feature trying to solve ?

Benoit Marchant marchant at mac.com
Wed Oct 2 11:05:36 PDT 2013

One could say that JavaScript is an object oriented language where functions are first class citizen. But JavaScript doesn't have methods, which in most oo languages have the feature of always running with this being the object the methods is executed on. 

Was introducing a new type "method" considered? In JavaScript it would solve one class of problem we have with functions, which is the one I've been most impacted with as I generally use JS in an more oo way than functional way. And yes, I used more handleEvent for that reason.


> EOn Oct 2, 2013, at 10:55, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> fat arrow does not add any capabilities but create the need to be sure about the context.
> In use strict fat arrow will bring a lovely `undefined` wich is undesired so nothing is solved in there.
> You need to be sure that the function/closure that is defining the fat arrow is doing it in a `this` context you expect and I wonder how many developers will fall into a `this` hell instead  of "_callback hell_" forced to define fat arrows inside functions such:
> ```javascript
> (function(){
> this.method = () => alert(123);
> }).call(theDesiredContext);
> ```
> The good part is that I've already written about so many pattern able to solve many common mistakes fat arrow will introduce so at least for me this will be a good reference to solve those mistakes/problems later on in the future.
> Not much to add if not please read again your first answer to my question, something not just me found not just rude.
> I've asked a question, a honest one, trying to understand. I wasn't trolling and I write real code so your "virtually nobody use that" approach is my daily basis code which is "virtually a better architecture for my needs" that I strongly hope W3C won't ever decide to get rid of because it avoids massive, expensive, pointless usage of extra objects, GC operations, and amount of RAM.
> Google is usually very keen to these problems, handleEvent solve an infinity of them at once, developers should just learn how convenient this approach could be for mostly all their DOM based tasks and why not, even more.
> Best Regards
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
>> <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > setTimeout accept extra arguments ... I write JavaScript that uses this
>> > feature.
>> >
>> > `setTimeout(callback, delay, arg1, arg2, argN, evenAnObject);`
>> >
>> > so fat arrow does not solve much here, I can use self as first argument and
>> > I am good.
>> >
>> > `forEach` and all other arrays accept a second argument
>> >
>> > `array.forEach(doStuff, boundContextObject);`
>> >
>> > so fat arrow does not solve a thing in mostly all Array extras.
>> Having the capability to set 'this' (or pass the current this as a
>> plain argument) doesn't make it any more convenient.  'this' still
>> isn't captured by the closure like every other variable is, which is
>> confusing.  As David said, being forced to pollute the signature of
>> every standard callback-taking function with this argument is just
>> silly.  As Claude and others have said, the silly 'this'-rebinding
>> kludges we have to adopt *everywhere* just to work around this feature
>> of JS are ridiculous and fragile.  Automatic 'this' binding is very
>> convenient in some places.  In others, it's very inconvenient.  Arrow
>> functions give us something better suited for those latter cases.
>> > for **DOM** I use handlers as specified by **W3C** so that `{handleEvent:
>> > function () {this}}` works better than any mess I could create with
>> > callbacks that I won't be unable to remove later on (as I've said) ...
>> Virtually nobody does this, and newer interfaces specified with the
>> WebIDL 'callback' type don't accept it at all.
>> > so I
>> > can use `removeEventListener(this)` in every method handled by that object.
>> I didn't mention event listeners, actually.  There are lots of other
>> things that take callbacks besides event listeners.
>> > So I actually wonder what kind of JavaScript **you** write because this was
>> > a honest question but probably ... people not familiar with JS are the
>> > answer: since developers ignore part of JS specs available since every then
>> > we need a fat arrow to break old syntax to make the creation of self bound
>> > function easier.
>> >
>> > This would be already an answer so thanks for participating.
>> Wow, that's pretty rude.
>> ~TJ
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131002/a04b5f13/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list