Mixing grammars

kai zhu kaizhu256 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 5 23:56:50 UTC 2017


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

we can agree to disagree.  more people like me might look at es9/10 code
that may have this feature and think "this looks nothing like javascript"
anymore, and then join es-discuss to complain about having to debug other
people's unreadable code like i do.

On Sep 6, 2017 06:40, "Jordan Harband" <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/20170906/a7685e06/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list