Quoting kai zhu: "more people like me might look at es9/10 code that may
have this feature and think "this looks nothing like javascript"
anymore, and then join es-discuss to complain about having to debug
other people's unreadable code like i do."
Maybe they should read up the manuals / tutorials on the internet
instead? And then if it is still unclear they may ask on stack overflow.
I also stumbled over constructs I did not know in the past, but thats a
normal learning process. E.g. I remember, years ago in the beginning of
"my JS carreer", coming from C, I first stumbled over constructs like
this one (over-simplified, of course):
const X = ((A,B)=>{return A+B;})(A,B);
Well I wasn't aware of unnamed functions being called directly. But I
found out about it. Now I am glad having it.
Kai, I see you often trying to block new inventions with the argument,
that other people will not understand it. But finally it's the decision
of the developer or company guidelines of a company whether to use a
feature or not. And when someone wants to modify someone elses code, he
must be willing to learn whatever constructs the other one found being
handy, or, in case he does not like that, write his own variant which
does not use that construct. And in case the code they try to debug is
unreadable for you, you should consider learning or contact the author
and ask him for clarification or complain there. But after all you are
an engineer and a good engineer does not complain about others just
because he does not want to or is not able to improve his skills. Please
don't feel insulted by that statement.
Example: I personally do not like the syntax (A,B)=>A+B - instead I
prefer writing (A,B)=>{return A+B;}, because it is more explicit and
with the braces I see more easily on where the function body really ends
- in case it is embedded somewhere. So I do not use it. My colleague
likes it and uses it - I do not punish him for that, I just asked him
not to use it when he contributes to my work. We are both fine with
that. And I definitely do not complain on es-discuss about that syntax
having been introduced...
By the way: I probably will not use the pipe syntax suggested in the
referred proposal ATM but I will for sure accept other people doing so
and may also start using it when I see a benefit for my work.
On 06.09.2017 01:56, kai zhu wrote:
> If operators are in JS, then code using them reads like JS by
definition.
we can agree to disagree. more people like me might look at es9/10
code that may have this feature and think "this looks nothing like
javascript" anymore, and then join es-discuss to complain about having
to debug other people's unreadable code like i do.
On Sep 6, 2017 06:40, "Jordan Harband" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> If operators are in JS, then code using them reads like JS by
definition.
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:38 PM, kai zhu <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> i tend to agree with peter that function-composition and
pipe-operators are likely footguns that don't solve anything new, and
that you should be careful what you wish for.
>>
>> like es6, its all fun when you're writing your own code, but not so
much when you "inherit" someone else's orphaned web-project (which
seems to be happening alot in industry lately), and it reads more like
perl than javascript.
>>
>> we should be consolidating javascript grammar and design-patterns
instead of fragmenting it further, so that everyone's code can be more
readable to everyone else.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2017 21:59, "Naveen Chawla" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In case anyone is reading this onesdiscuss.org
<http://esdiscuss.org>, the 2nd link gets broken when posting it. It's
this one (edited onesdiscuss.org <http://esdiscuss.org>):
>>>
>>>https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 at 17:36 kdex <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification!
>>>>
>>>> There has recently been some discussion about the semantics of
`|>` in [1].
>>>> I think what you're looking for is [2], perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50
<https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50>
>>>>
[2]https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 1:52:31 PM CEST Peter van der Zee wrote:
>>>> > > Sorry, but your message looks very opinionated and I can't
seem to find
>>>> > > any
>>>> >
>>>> > objective reasoning in there.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nah, you might be thrown off by the different grammar ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thing is, `|>` would introduce a new way of calling a function in a
>>>> > way that is not at all in line with how functions are called in JS.
>>>> > That means JS devs won't easily recognize `a |> b` as easily as
they
>>>> > do `b(a)`. (Also consider less text-book-y examples here please...)
>>>> >
>>>> > You might argue that this will be a transitional period and I will
>>>> > counter you with an existential question; Why at all? What does
this
>>>> > solve? And is it worth the cognitive overhead?
>>>> >
>>>> > I think this is a bad addition to the language. One that
doesn't "fit"
>>>> > with how the language currently works. And one that will lead
to many
>>>> > devs being thoroughly confused when confronted with this.
>>>> >
>>>> > But, I'm not asking you to take my opinion on it. Research it.
Please
>>>> > do some research on this. Reach out to devs of all types (not just
>>>> > react devs, not just functional programmers, not just vanilla JS
>>>> > coders, not just code golfers, and definitely not just people
on the
>>>> > TC39) and figure out how they will respond when confronted with
>>>> > additions like this. And please post those results here. I
don't mind
>>>> > being wrong. As long as you can back those claims up when
introducing
>>>> > something like this.
>>>> >
>>>> > - peter_______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Michael Kriegel • Head of R&D • Actifsource AG • Haldenstrasse 1 • CH-6340 Baar
• www.actifsource.com • +41 56 250 40 02
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
