Array.prototype.replace

[Isiah Meadows]

The main things I know of that are blocked on the pipeline operator IIUC
are observables and iterable utilities. As-is, using observables without
methods or a pipeline operator starts to feel like you're using Lisp, not
JS, because of the sheer number of operators. (It's an array over *time*,
not *space*, so you have things like debouncing, throttling, etc. that you
have to address.) Iterables are in a similar situation because they're
lazy, it's protocol-based rather than prototype-based, and JS lacks
anything like monads.

-----

Isiah Meadows
me at isiahmeadows.com
www.isiahmeadows.com

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Ben Wiley <therealbenwiley at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It’s not clear to me that pursuit of new Array methods should be abandoned
> purely on speculation that the pipe operator will pass Stage 1.
>
>
>
> That said, the realization that Object.assign provides this functionality
> is enough for me to quit pursuing (my version of) Array.prototype.replace.
>
>
>
> I’d prefer that further discussion concern the earlier-discussed extension
> to the Array rest spread syntax. :)
>
>
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:50 AM
> *To: *"T.J. Crowder" <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
> *Cc: *"therealbenwiley at gmail.com" <therealbenwiley at gmail.com>, "
> es-discuss at mozilla.org" <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Array.prototype.replace
>
>
>
> just a few days ago another full stack JS dev mentioned Array replace and
> it has nothing to do with what was proposed in here:
>
> https://medium.com/@gajus/the-case-for-array-replace-cd9330707243
>
>
>
> My TL;DR response was that once the pipe operator is in, everyone can
> bring in its own meaning for `array |> replace` and call it a day.
>
>
>
> Keep polluting the already most polluted prototype of them all doesn't
> look like a good strategy to improve the language.
>
>
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:37 PM T.J. Crowder <
> tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Ben Wiley <therealbenwiley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hm, despite the fewer number of points in the cons category I'm
> persuaded by
> > the argument that we don't want people getting arrays and objects
> confused.
> > Might be best to limit that until there is a compelling use case which
> there
> > might not be.
>
> Heh, whereas despite having written that first bullet in the footgun
> column somewhat forcefully (looking back), I go the other way. :-)
>
>
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180711/1a94593c/attachment.html>