On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Peter Michaux <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe that David Bruant has a good point. We *need* a shorter syntax >> because we advocate the use of map/reduce, etc., which require simple >> anonymous functions. > > No. We don't "need" syntactic sugar. The current function syntax is > working and we are talking a few characters difference, not hundreds. > > Map/reduce don't "require" syntactic sugar.
It is not a requirement, indeed. I feel like it is a need, however. JavaScript is still seen as a badly object-oriented programming language by those who still think it is java with a weird syntax. I do hope it grows to be known as an outstanding functional programming language. Thanks to ES5's strict mode, it now gets freed from the "this" issue, for those that use it. Huffmanization requires that we reduce the size of what we want to use often. If we want to use more functions, then it isn't just eleven less characters once in a while, it becomes a bigger deal! > There are so many more important issues to address. If you feel like addressing more important issues, I warmly beg you to do so! _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
