On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Peter Michaux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think that this is what compilers and projects like coffeescript are >> for. In my opinion, JavaScript itself doesn't need this new syntax. >> >> I think improving JavaScript as a compilation target is a good goal. > > This argument comes up time and again: "We don't need to make > JavaScript a good programming language,
JavaScript is already a good programming language. It can use improvements but it has "good" covered. > just a good compilation > target". I did not write that it needs to be "just a good compilation target." I don't use a compiler to enable me to write source in another language and then serve JavaScript to the browser. I write in JavaScript. So I do want JavaScript to remain a good language. That said, improving JavaScript as a compilation target does expose areas where the language could use features it does not have at all (in any syntax.) Adding those features makes JavaScript objectively a more capable language. > I think it's really wrong-headed. Me too. > First, JavaScript is a > language used by millions of people as a programming language, and we > should give them a great language to program in. JavaScript already has "great" covered too. :-) I'd be willing to go for "even better" but the arrow syntax isn't even a significant contribution to this cause. Real features would be. A weak map, for example, is a great idea because we just cannot do anything like that now without implementing our own garbage collection. > Second, JavaScript > as source rather than target has been a huge enabler of the Web as an > open platform, which I certainly don't want to move away from. So, > even though we've worked hard in the module system to better support > compilation to JavaScript, I think the our fundamental goal should be > to make JavaScript a great language to write all kinds of programs in. That wasn't one of Brendan's stated goals; however, it is a good goal. I think the arrow syntax is not helpful in this goal. >> For example, a real "lambda" with guaranteed proper tail calls, no >> "arguments", no need for "return", etc would make is possible to >> compile Scheme to JavaScript without using something inefficient like >> trampolines. It would also open up recursive programming options in >> plain JavaScript so it would be win-win. > > And hey, it turns out we've done this too -- at least with the -> syntax. :) It has been confirmed that the arrow syntax is *only* syntactic sugar for existing function syntax. That means introducing the arrow syntax does *not* improve the compilation Scheme to JavaScript *at all*. Peter _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
