2012/3/3 Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> > > -1. I would actively avoid using this in my own ES6 code, because of the > unnecessary confusion it would cause to those coming from CoffeeScript. > > >> Why should ES/JavaScript make its decisions based on a transpiled > language that actually requires JS itself to exist? I don't think it should > matter either way... > > Because the overlap between CoffeeScript programmers and JavaScript > programmers is one of the highest between JavaScript and any other > language. And this overlap will only increase by the time ES6 makes it out > the door. > > If you're arguing that CoffeeScript should change itself to accommodate > JavaScript, well, maybe Jeremy can comment on how likely that is. > Personally I think es-discuss should be careful not to alienate such a > large and growing fraction of their userbase, especially with comments like > the above that seem, on the surface at least, to be belittling the role and > importance of CoffeeScript. IMO "CoffeeScript 6" will be a very important > factor in the success of ECMAScript 6, so making it as easy and welcoming > as possible is an important consideration.
Pure strawman. David Herman summarized my feeling about it best here: "...different languages use a symbol for different purposes. They're different languages-- they are by definition different notational systems! " When Jeremy was developing CoffeeScript, he clearly didn't say "JavaScript may someday want to use ->, so I better not use it" and why should he? It's a different language, with many different notations. Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
