On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Gil Tayar <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that the initial discussion was not about not adding features or yes > adding features. It was about adding niche and convenience feature that > will help only in niche situations. >
oh, you mean like...( accoding to https://medium.com/@ flaviohfreitas/es8-the-new-features-of-javascript-7506210a1a22 ) extra builtins Object.values and Object.entries somehow made it in. These are both easy enough to accomplish with two lines of code; and they certainly didn't make me go 'oh, that would have been useful at...' > So, IMHO, adding features like async await that benefit everybody and > change the language in a meaningful way, yes. Adding small convenience > feature that can be implemented in a library, usually no. > > - Gil > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017, 08:53 田生. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "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 <tj.crowder@farsightsoftware. >> com> >> > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
