Mixing grammars

Naveen Chawla naveen.chwl at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 14:58:57 UTC 2017


In case anyone is reading this on esdiscuss.org, the 2nd link gets broken
when posting it. It's this one (edited on esdiscuss.org):

https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 at 17:36 kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:

> Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification!
>
> There has recently been some discussion about the semantics of `|>` in [1].
> I think what you're looking for is [2], perhaps?
>
> [1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50
> [2]
> https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 1:52:31 PM CEST Peter van der Zee wrote:
> > > Sorry, but your message looks very opinionated and I can't seem to find
> > > any
> >
> > objective reasoning in there.
> >
> > Nah, you might be thrown off by the different grammar ;)
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > Thing is, `|>` would introduce a new way of calling a function in a
> > way that is not at all in line with how functions are called in JS.
> > That means JS devs won't easily recognize `a |> b` as easily as they
> > do `b(a)`. (Also consider less text-book-y examples here please...)
> >
> > You might argue that this will be a transitional period and I will
> > counter you with an existential question; Why at all? What does this
> > solve? And is it worth the cognitive overhead?
> >
> > I think this is a bad addition to the language. One that doesn't "fit"
> > with how the language currently works. And one that will lead to many
> > devs being thoroughly confused when confronted with this.
> >
> > But, I'm not asking you to take my opinion on it. Research it. Please
> > do some research on this. Reach out to devs of all types (not just
> > react devs, not just functional programmers, not just vanilla JS
> > coders, not just code golfers, and definitely not just people on the
> > TC39) and figure out how they will respond when confronted with
> > additions like this. And please post those results here. I don't mind
> > being wrong. As long as you can back those claims up when introducing
> > something like this.
> >
> > - peter_______________________________________________
> 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/20170904/e511da8f/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list