On May 21, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Peter Michaux wrote: > Alex, > > That is not what I wrote at all because I didn't write the "it could be > better". > > The analogy that Nathan was making does not apply to JavaScript. He > wrote that C# delegates were not popular in C# 2.0. Functions are > already popular in JavaScript.
So you were only arguing that his analogy was flawed in that the cause of the current proposal isn't under-use but rather problems borne from over-use? Fair enough. It's not an argument against the proposal, then, and I misread it. Apologies. > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Alex Russell <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm sorry, this this argument is entirely circular: >> >> - we have something that works >> - it could be better >> - but it works, so we don't need anything better >> >> ? >> >> On May 21, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Peter Michaux wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Nathan Stott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Having worked a lot with C#, my experience was that very very few >>>> people used the C# 2.0 delegate syntax and now a large portion of the >>>> community learned and uses the C# 3.0 syntax. Syntax matters. >>> >>> JavaScript functions have not suffered neglect due to the length of >>> their syntax. Function expressions are already wildly popular in >>> JavaScript. So this C# data does not really support the necessity for >>> change in JavaScript. -- Alex Russell [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
