The Tragedy of the Common Lisp, or, Why Large Languages Explode (was: revive let blocks)

Greg McLeod cleod9 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 20 04:25:37 UTC 2015


>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Scott Sauyet <scott at sauyet.com> wrote:
> I think the difference between your list and mine exemplifies the tragedy
> of the commons as so well described by Mark.  Although we both share a
> liking for modules and imports, my favorite ES6 feature is the arrow
> functions, with destructuring near the top.   The very bottom of my list,
> the only one I really, really wish n not been included is `class`.
>
> Covering the desires of both users like you and users like me is what can
> so easily leaf to bloat.
>
I think we're actually on the same page in terms of where a lot of the
problems lie in these discussions (though personally I've at least conceded
to ES6 at this point, since for me the core issue is more about
interpreting other people's code than it is about using it myself where I
can control its readability). It's probably not possible to add something
to a language that everyone likes, so the only option seems to be
compromise. In a way that's kind of a double-edged sword, where both
parties might benefit individually but at the cost of inhibited
conversation between the opposing sides (e.g. "i don't mind you getting X
so long as I can Y"). But I imagine as more people pick up ES6 it might
become clearer what the average dev is getting the most benefit from, and
those areas might be worth putting extra attention.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone just brought <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9742823> to
>> my attention. It says:
>>
>
> I agree completely, and I fully apologize. Starting the thread this way
> was inappropriate, at least without some mitigating text which I did not
> think to add. I like the fact that we are all civil to each other here and
> try to keep the environment welcoming and friendly. Please no one take my
> message as precedent in the other direction.
>

Despite your opening I think you still fired up a much needed conversation.
This is the most critical thread I've read in awhile, and in a way it feels
a bit like a post-mortem for the recent release. Speaking of which, a
retrospective thread might be a good thing to have on a regular basis after
any ECMAScript release to get people's lingering thoughts out in the open
before moving on.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Scott Sauyet <scott at sauyet.com> wrote:

>
> Greg McLeod <cleod9 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really really love JS (it's so fun!), and while there are many
> features in ES6 that I think are great (such as classes, modules, and
> import syntax) there are things that quite frankly scare me quite a bit.
> Such examples include destructuring and arrow functions, which make sense
> when used in simple use cases but I find confusing to interpret when
> reading someone else's code due to their terseness.
>
> I think the difference between your list and mine exemplifies the tragedy
> of the commons as so well described by Mark.  Although we both share a
> liking for modules and imports, my favorite ES6 feature is the arrow
> functions, with destructuring near the top.   The very bottom of my list,
> the only one I really, really wish n not been included is `class`.
>
> Covering the desires of both users like you and users like me is what can
> so easily leaf to bloat.
>
>   -- Scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150620/2ec852af/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list