I used the term 'language contributors' rather than TC39 as an intentionally vague way of describing people like us.
The ISO C++ Committee also lacks a consensus on everything, but that doesn't mean those people and the people around them can't debate and establish a consensus on *something*. Hence, C++ Core Guidelines. I think the reality is that people are averse to this because they don't want their pet practices at work being discouraged by anything resembling official guidance — having to justify a decision to use `var` instead of `const` by default is *effort*, right? But they're perhaps not always considering the benefits that an improvement in (not necessarily total) uniformity can bring. I claim that the majority in the Python community would say that PEP-8 has been a net benefit. (Yes I break its rules from time to time. That's what rules are for. ;) ) On 20 October 2017 at 00:54, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > In general, it's not the TC39 who should be dictating how code is > written - in particular, even they have their stylistic disagreements > (like with ASI and `let` vs `const`), and active TC39 representative > maintain both JSHint (opinionated) and ESLint (unopinionated). > Additionally, JSLint (the predecessor to JSHint) was created by a > formerly active TC39 representative. If you want to see more of these > broad stylistic disagreements, check out [their meeting notes][1]. A > few things that come to mind are decorators, cancellation, recent > class additions, and [BigInt][2]. > > Instead, if you have your own strong opinions on everything, try > introducing [ESLint][3] to your projects. They have numerous presets > and rules built-in, and you can create your own custom presets, rules, > and plugins. If you want to ban `null`, write a custom rule for it. If > you want to ban anything not ES5, write a rule that catches every > expression that isn't ES5. If you want to define local rules, use > [eslint-plugin-local][4]. In my case, I decided I didn't want to use > default exports, so I wrote a local rule banning all default exports. > Not that I have a problem with those who use it - I don't. I just feel > it's easier for me to wrap my head around named exports without > introducing the cognitive overhead of default exports. > > [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/notes > [2]: https://esdiscuss.org/notes/2017-01-25#15iv-progress- > report-and-request-for-comments-on-64-bit-int-support > [3]: https://eslint.org/ > [4]: https://github.com/taskworld/eslint-plugin-local > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > [email protected] > > Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? > Send me an email and we can get started. > www.isiahmeadows.com > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I disagree that the language contributors should be involved in best > > practice guidance. Patterns evolve over usage and experience with the > > constructs. I bet the implementors of `&&` and `||` didn't necessarily > > expect them to be used so effectively for non-boolean logic e.g. `car && > > car.drive()` instead of `if(car!==undefined) car.drive()` or whatever... > Or > > maybe they did. But the point is language usage is often a matter of > opinion > > and preference, and not something that should be set as a tide against a > > possibly justifiable opposition. As a response to the original question, > I > > gave my opinion and reason in brackets. If the reader prefers a different > > way for their own reasons, fine - I would just expect them to give their > own > > reasons for superseding my reasons... > > > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 14:34 Alexander Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The beauty of (coding) standards is that there are so many to choose > from. > >> :) > >> > >> IMO it’s a false dichotomy though. A respected and credible group of > >> language contributors should pool some energy together and ratify some > >> opinionated best practices, a la the C++ Core Guidelines and PEP-8. No, > it’s > >> not *necessary*—neither is the exponent operator—but it does have clear > >> benefits. > >> > >> I believe most in the community would rather not have to sell things > like > >> “const by default” to their team members, when it could be “official” > >> guidance instead. It’s energy we’d rather be spending on other things! > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 06:59, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> These questions have consumed programmers in most languages since > >>> forever. It's not TC39's place to tell people how to write code - but > >>> there's plenty of style guides that have answers to these questions. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:44 PM, kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> there are several factors for the current javascript-fatigue. one > >>>> factor which tc39 could help mitigate is to provide a narrative on > how to > >>>> consistently apply proposed language-features (over > existing-practices and > >>>> interfacing with legacy-code). > >>>> > >>>> i feel too many new and old javascript-programmers alike are unable to > >>>> adopt a consistent programming-style for post-es5 features in > >>>> production-code. style-issues which are problematic when a project > has to > >>>> deal with legacy libraries include: > >>>> > >>>> - when is it appropriate to use callback vs promise vs async-generator > >>>> vs async/await, when interfacing with legacy-code (aka > >>>> context-switching-hell or baton-passing-hell)? > >>>> - when is it appropriate to use var vs let, when interfacing with > >>>> legacy-code? > >>>> - when is it appropriate to use function vs fat-arrow, when > interfacing > >>>> with legacy-code? > >>>> - how can we apply destructuring in a consistent and readable manner? > >>>> - when is it appropriate to use (proposed) pipeline-operator, and when > >>>> is it not? > >>>> > >>>> es6/es7/es8 introduces hundreds of these kinds of questions which > >>>> distract us from actual coding and shipping features. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
