"backwards compatibility" is a nice thing. But making a language larger just means harder to be backwards compatibility.
Supporting of more features do not mean more productive. Good features do contribute to productive. But there are more features just make things complex and less productive. I'd like to see more "new" things. But I'd also like to see it just keeps simple. 2017-07-19 13:33 GMT+08:00, Naveen Chawla <[email protected]>: > A note on "largeness" of languages. > > New features that represent a new way of doing things that are simpler to > code, read/understand and maintain while offering all the same or even more > power are a good thing. It allows ever increasingly complex technical > ambitions to be achieved ever quicker. > > As code bases transition to the "new" way, the old stuff is hardly seen any > more. It is only preserved for backwards compatibility. New code can be > written entirely in the new way, which means the old stuff is nowhere to be > seen. > > (e.g. "prototype", anonymous "function" declarations (as opposed to arrow > functions), "var", "then" callbacks on promises (as opposed to await) etc. > are gradually becoming relics, which is a good thing) > > As such, the set of features in ideal usage doesn't necessarily grow just > because these new ways are devised and implemented! > > Old code can stay as it is and continue to work thanks to backwards > compatibility, so nobody should get hurt by aggressive introduction of new > features in ES that palpably allow ever quicker and quicker productivity > for those that opt to use them instead! > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 22:58 T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to >>> > feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on >>> > realizing the added complexity of new language features >>> >>> my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the >>> world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more >>> difficult >>> and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come. >>> javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so >>> comes >>> at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web. >>> >> >> Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that. >> >> -- T.J. Crowder >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
