On Jul 18, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Word on the street, from folks ranging the skill gamut, is that <|, <& and 
>> so on are Perl-ish line noise. We should consider alternatives, even if it 
>> means restricted productions.
> As I've said in the past, I'm generally more in the COBOL/readability camp 
> than I am in the APL/terseness  camp (in reality, I more of a PL/I guy.  (and 
> what's this new fangled Perl thing that everybody keeps talking about??))
> That said, in writing sample code I've come to find <| to be rather pleasant 
> to both write and read. 

I can believe that. We should in any case not rush to judgment. "consider 
alternatives" means writing some side-by-side examples, playing with 
alternatives in practical code.

> Beyond that, we need to really decide what we want to surface syntax of JS to 
> be like as it evolve.  Do we want a keyword rich language or a concise 
> language that uses lots of special characters.  How to we find the balance 
> between the extreme.  For now I don't think we really have anything to guide 
> us so we keep oscillate  from on to the other based upon the latest feedback 
> on a proposal that goes one way or the other.

The main feedback is "don't grow the surface syntax too much". ES4 did 
overreach here, based on original-JS2/ES4 precedent and AS3. We should in any 
case not add "too much" (to be defined).


es-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to