For one, I wouldn't describe strong typing as a "pet feature". Two, no, as far as I know, most of those languages in that list don't offer macros or lots of parentheses; and, if they did, then, yeah, maybe it does say something.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Domenic Denicola < [email protected]> wrote: > In general ECMAScript lacks lots of features. You may well ask why it > doesn't have any other pet feature, and you can often point to > compile-to-JS languages that add those. This doesn't imply that the feature > should be added to the language. > > Here, let me try: > > --- > > I'm aware of LispyScript, as well as all of these: > https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS > . > > But those languages appear to have been created precisely because > ECMAScript lacks features like lots of parentheses or macros. How many of > those languages offer lots of parentheses? I count quite a few... Doesn't > that say something? > > --- > > The existence of a feature in other languages does not imply it should be > added to ECMAScript. You'll have to justify better than that why you think > strong typing would be valuable to a language that has historically > rejected it. (I'll wait for one of the old timers to chime in about the ES4 > days here.) > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
