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). /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
