Scoped binding of a method to an object

Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum inglor at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 03:06:42 PDT 2013


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>
 wrote:

> > Arguably, the _syntactic_ complexity is not huge. It is almost benign,
> compared to the _semantic_ complexity.

Agreed. I have a bit of a problem articulating my thoughts clearly through
this medium being new. The problem with introducing additional syntax to
have scoped extension methods to the language is mostly the semantics
scoped methods introduce by introducing the extra type of scope and not the
extra rule in the language grammar.

Even the syntax on its own sounds like a huge deal though, it's one more
thing to teach every programmer learning the language JavaScript and an
extra bit of cognitive overload.


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>wrote:

> On 14 October 2013 22:10, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> But there were design issues too. ... user confusion or complexity
> remains
> >> an objection.
> >
> > Yes! This is the thing that bothers me most right now about scoped
> extension
> > methods. Introducing additional syntax to the language seems like a
> _huge_
> > objection to me, the fact that it's another thing to teach programmers
> and
> > another thing to keep in mind when figuring out scopes when reading new
> code
> > is a big deal in my opinion.
>
> Arguably, the _syntactic_ complexity is not huge. It is almost benign,
> compared to the _semantic_ complexity.
>
> /Andreas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131015/b1d28670/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list