Obviously we should use š¯“• or something like that. I'm sure it's been proposed, although I can't find it at the moment. Yes, I know all the reasons why that's a bad idea.
But come on. Are you worried about typing more characters? Use an IDE with auto-complete, or snippets. Are you worried about payload size on the wire? Zipping makes it virtually irrelevant. Bob On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Laurentiu Taschina <[email protected] > wrote: > > The only benefit seems to be saving a few characters. The costs being > an increase in complexity in the ways you can define a function, an > increase in the complexity of parsing for functions, and the need to endure > a candidate stage process for the removal of a few characters. To me, the > costs far outweigh the benefit of just using the existing ways of declaring > functions. > > I believe you're being unfair here. It's obviously not just 4 characters > when it's such a common construct. If "let" was 3 words instead of 3 > letters, like say "assign variable value" what do you think would happen? > Would people think of it as "just 18 more characters". No, people would > ignore it completely no matter it's usefulness or correctness and world > continue to use "var" exclusively. > > The cost of not changing it is that people will slowly and surely > gravitate to avoiding using "function" ever (if they can), and thus the > construct that can be named falls out of favor. And history has shown it > happens, particularly in javascript, given the popularity of $ and _ for a > good number of libraries, and at the same time the unpopularity of > perfectly usable but tooLongToTypeNamed native versions. Of course in large > part it's ease of use and consistency and all that, but the first thing I > ever hear they being sold on is how short/easy they are. Looking at other > cases today you have the situation of things like Kotlin vs Java, or swift > vs objective C. From Kotlin's site it literally gets described as "Concise, > simple and very easy to read (and write)" in their first example. But even > looking at just javascript's past, people clearly care enough to make their > own divergent language just to get it have things be shorterā€”and if they > can't do that, then the next best thing is to misuse the language. > > This wouldn't maybe be a particular big issue, but javascript is > more-or-less "build complex functions with a bunch of small functions." > Callbacks imply lots of functions, promises imply a lot of functions, > functions are usually split into lots of smaller single-use-functions, > functions often times return functions, etc. > > Anonymous functions are already kind of annoyance born of laziness but > with arrow functions (and how they can not easily have a name in the > context of a callback) they're becoming particularly routed into the > language. I think at this point people looking at a stack trace seeing the > callbacks named will look at it as something strange. Don't you think that > it's strange that that's normal? > > With regard to the difficulties of this going though, I could have > presented the some-greatest-feature-ever and you could have just > copy/pasted that 2nd part of your sentence there to shoot it down. All I'll > say is that it's just a synonym to an existing thing (even let is more > complex), for users it's just an nicer version that helps with moving away > from anonymous functions (you wouldnt really ever need to use "function" > ever again, much like you dont need "var" now). And as far as implementing > goes, if we were to create javascript form scratch would we actually use > "function" as the keyword for creating functions and all the other > overlyLongMethodNames? I don't think so, every other programming language > doesn't seem to think so, with how concise most libraries are written the > community doesn't seem to think so, and even the language javascript > presumably copied those habits from probably no longer thinks so anymore. I > think even with out other benefits just getting closer to the language that > everyone thinks it should have been like is valuable enough to warrant the > hassle. I assume that's the very reason we have let now too. > > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Eli Perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I'm having trouble believing saving a couple of characters will have >> the weight to make it happen >> >> I think this is the crux of the issue. What is the cost vs. benefit of >> the proposal, and do these benefits outweigh the tradeoffs? >> >> The only benefit seems to be saving a few characters. The costs being an >> increase in complexity in the ways you can define a function, an increase >> in the complexity of parsing for functions, and the need to endure a >> candidate stage process for the removal of a few characters. To me, the >> costs far outweigh the benefit of just using the existing ways of declaring >> functions. >> >> TLDR; to me this is -1. >> >> Eli Perelman >> >> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:51 PM T.J. Crowder < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Laurentiu Taschina < >>> [email protected]> wrote... >>> >>> So the TL;DR of all that is: You think `func` (or whatever) can be an >>> identifier or keyword based on context. >>> >>> Well, quite true, it's certainly been done before (`async` for >>> instance). All I'll say is: Good luck with that, for this purpose. :-) >>> >>> I'll flag up an ASI gotcha you'll need to avoid: When defining `func` >>> function definitions, you'll need "[no LineTerminator here]" after the >>> closing `)` of the parameter list. Why? Because otherwise this is a >>> function call followed by a standalone block thanks to ASI: >>> >>> ```js >>> let a = func() >>> { console.log("blah"); }; >>> ``` >>> >>> (Which is why AsyncFunctionDefinition has "[no LineTerminator >>> here]" after `async`.) But again: It's been done before, so... >>> >>> I'm having trouble believing saving a couple of characters will have the >>> weight to make it happen, and personally wouldn't favor it, but frankly >>> that doesn't mean anything. >>> >>> -- 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
