Mixing grammars

Jordan Harband ljharb at gmail.com
Tue Sep 5 23:40:10 UTC 2017


If operators are in JS, then code using them reads like JS by definition.

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:38 PM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:

> i tend to agree with peter that function-composition and pipe-operators
> are likely footguns that don't solve anything new, and that you should be
> careful what you wish for.
>
> like es6, its all fun when you're writing your own code, but not so much
> when you "inherit" someone else's orphaned web-project (which seems to be
> happening alot in industry lately), and it reads more like perl than
> javascript.
>
> we should be consolidating javascript grammar and design-patterns instead
> of fragmenting it further, so that everyone's code can be more readable to
> everyone else.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017 21:59, "Naveen Chawla" <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170905/cfcc73ad/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list