alex at weej.com
Fri Oct 20 08:19:02 UTC 2017
I used the term 'language contributors' rather than TC39 as an
intentionally vague way of describing people like us.
The ISO C++ Committee also lacks a consensus on everything, but that
doesn't mean those people and the people around them can't debate and
establish a consensus on *something*. Hence, C++ Core Guidelines.
I think the reality is that people are averse to this because they don't
want their pet practices at work being discouraged by anything resembling
official guidance — having to justify a decision to use `var` instead of
`const` by default is *effort*, right? But they're perhaps not always
considering the benefits that an improvement in (not necessarily total)
uniformity can bring.
I claim that the majority in the Python community would say that PEP-8 has
been a net benefit. (Yes I break its rules from time to time. That's what
rules are for. ;) )
On 20 October 2017 at 00:54, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote:
> In general, it's not the TC39 who should be dictating how code is
> written - in particular, even they have their stylistic disagreements
> (like with ASI and `let` vs `const`), and active TC39 representative
> maintain both JSHint (opinionated) and ESLint (unopinionated).
> Additionally, JSLint (the predecessor to JSHint) was created by a
> formerly active TC39 representative. If you want to see more of these
> broad stylistic disagreements, check out [their meeting notes]. A
> few things that come to mind are decorators, cancellation, recent
> class additions, and [BigInt].
> Instead, if you have your own strong opinions on everything, try
> introducing [ESLint] to your projects. They have numerous presets
> and rules built-in, and you can create your own custom presets, rules,
> and plugins. If you want to ban `null`, write a custom rule for it. If
> you want to ban anything not ES5, write a rule that catches every
> expression that isn't ES5. If you want to define local rules, use
> [eslint-plugin-local]. In my case, I decided I didn't want to use
> default exports, so I wrote a local rule banning all default exports.
> Not that I have a problem with those who use it - I don't. I just feel
> it's easier for me to wrap my head around named exports without
> introducing the cognitive overhead of default exports.
> : https://esdiscuss.org/notes
> : https://esdiscuss.org/notes/2017-01-25#15iv-progress-
> : https://eslint.org/
> : https://github.com/taskworld/eslint-plugin-local
> Isiah Meadows
> me at isiahmeadows.com
> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
> Send me an email and we can get started.
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at gmail.com>
> > I disagree that the language contributors should be involved in best
> > practice guidance. Patterns evolve over usage and experience with the
> > constructs. I bet the implementors of `&&` and `||` didn't necessarily
> > expect them to be used so effectively for non-boolean logic e.g. `car &&
> > car.drive()` instead of `if(car!==undefined) car.drive()` or whatever...
> > maybe they did. But the point is language usage is often a matter of
> > and preference, and not something that should be set as a tide against a
> > possibly justifiable opposition. As a response to the original question,
> > gave my opinion and reason in brackets. If the reader prefers a different
> > way for their own reasons, fine - I would just expect them to give their
> > reasons for superseding my reasons...
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:34 Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> wrote:
> >> The beauty of (coding) standards is that there are so many to choose
> >> :)
> >> IMO it’s a false dichotomy though. A respected and credible group of
> >> language contributors should pool some energy together and ratify some
> >> opinionated best practices, a la the C++ Core Guidelines and PEP-8. No,
> >> not *necessary*—neither is the exponent operator—but it does have clear
> >> benefits.
> >> I believe most in the community would rather not have to sell things
> >> “const by default” to their team members, when it could be “official”
> >> guidance instead. It’s energy we’d rather be spending on other things!
> >> Alex
> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 06:59, Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> These questions have consumed programmers in most languages since
> >>> forever. It's not TC39's place to tell people how to write code - but
> >>> there's plenty of style guides that have answers to these questions.
> >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:44 PM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> factor which tc39 could help mitigate is to provide a narrative on
> how to
> >>>> consistently apply proposed language-features (over
> existing-practices and
> >>>> interfacing with legacy-code).
> >>>> adopt a consistent programming-style for post-es5 features in
> >>>> production-code. style-issues which are problematic when a project
> has to
> >>>> deal with legacy libraries include:
> >>>> - when is it appropriate to use callback vs promise vs async-generator
> >>>> vs async/await, when interfacing with legacy-code (aka
> >>>> context-switching-hell or baton-passing-hell)?
> >>>> - when is it appropriate to use var vs let, when interfacing with
> >>>> legacy-code?
> >>>> - when is it appropriate to use function vs fat-arrow, when
> >>>> with legacy-code?
> >>>> - how can we apply destructuring in a consistent and readable manner?
> >>>> - when is it appropriate to use (proposed) pipeline-operator, and when
> >>>> is it not?
> >>>> es6/es7/es8 introduces hundreds of these kinds of questions which
> >>>> distract us from actual coding and shipping features.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss