On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote:
> As someone who does wear the shoes of a senior programmer responsible > (along with my team) for overseeing a very very large web project, the > super trivial and easy answer to this is "use a linter" - eslint can be > configured to restrict any syntax you like, and since surely your CI > process is already gating any merges, so too can the linter be used to gate > merges, which will prevent anyone from any using any syntax you deem > unclean. > > Tons of new syntax can be added to JavaScript forever and it need not have > a single bit of impact on any of your project's code except a few lines in > your eslint configuration. > Hi Jordan, while I agree with some of your overall point, I think this goes way too far. The larger the language, and the more diversity there is in which subset one shop chooses vs another, the more we loose the benefits of having many developers use a common language. No one shop writes all the JS they use. They use libraries written by others whose lint rules are different. They hire programmers from other shops. They read and post to stackOverflow, etc. Much better is for the language to omit as much as possible, keeping it small. I am glad my "Tragedy of the Common Lisp" post is so widely cited and appreciated. Later in that thread, at https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-tragedy-of-the-common-lisp-or-why-large-languages-explode-was-revive-let-blocks#content-22 I state a hierarchy of different parts of a language with different pressures towards minimality: the force of my [minimality] point gets weaker as we move from core > language to standardizing libraries. The overall standard language can be > seen as consisting of these major parts: > > - fundamental syntax -- the special forms that cannot faithfully be > explained by local expansion to other syntax > > > - semantic state -- the state than computation manipulates > > > - kernel builtins -- built in library providing functionality that, if > it were absent, could not be provided instead by user code. > > > - intrinsics -- libraries that semantic state or kernel builtins > depend on. For example, with Proxies, one might be able to do Array in user > code. But other kernel builtins already have a dependency on Array > specifically, giving it a privileged position over any replacement. > > > - syntactic sugar -- the syntax that can be explained by local > expansion to fundamental syntax. > > > - global convenience libraries -- could be implemented by unprivileged > user code, but given standard global naming paths in the primordial global > namespace. > > > - standard convenient library modules > > I have listed these in order, according to my sense of the costs of growth > and the urgency for minimalism. For all of these we still need to exercise > discipline. But it is only for the last one that we should consider growth > of absolute size to be unbounded; restricting ourselves only to the rate of > growth as we wait for candidates to prove themselves first by the de facto > process. Ideally, TC39 should stop being the bottleneck on the last bullet > anyway, as external de facto and de jure processes should be perfectly > capable of independently arguing about and evolving standard convenience > modules. Although syntactic sugar is low on the list, it is still costly and best avoided when there's no compelling need. "Just use a linter" is not a panacea. > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Terence M. Bandoian <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In my opinion, one of the more significant advances in the C programming >> language was the increase in the maximum length of identifiers. To me, >> this translates to "less cryptic is better". >> >> -Terence Bandoian >> >> >> >> On 3/11/2018 1:09 AM, Peter Jaszkowiak wrote: >> >> Personally, I'd push my subordinates to learn this new syntax. But if you >> dislike it, you can blacklist it in your linter: it's one of the main >> features of a linter. >> >> On Mar 10, 2018 23:37, "kai zhu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> @peter, put yourself in the shoes of a senior-programmer responsible >>> for overseeing an entire web-project. the project is @ the >>> integration-stage and you're busy debugging an async >>> timeout/near-timeout bug preventing the frontend from talking to the >>> backend (which btw, is one of the most common integration/qa >>> javascript-bugs). >>> >>> while trying to figure out what's causing the timeout-issue, you're >>> debugging i/o code with operators that look like this: >>> >>> ``` >>> const h = ? |> f |> g; >>> ``` >>> >>> maybe it is useful for the small-picture sub-problem you were >>> originally trying to solve. but now that you're a bigger-fish with >>> bigger-picture integration i/o issues, doesn't this look alot like >>> technical-debt that no one will have a clue how to debug once a month >>> or two has passed? >>> >>> -kai >>> >>> On 3/11/18, Peter Jaszkowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Oh please, >>> > >>> > This is an alternative syntax that's very useful for many people. If >>> you >>> > want too simplify syntax yourself you can use a linter to disable >>> > alternatives. >>> > >>> > On Mar 10, 2018 22:56, "kai zhu" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> my vote is for neither. exactly what industry painpoint or >>> >> problem-space do either of these proposals solve? >>> >> >>> >> rather, they compound an existing industry painpoint; where >>> >> ocd-programmers have problems in deciding-and-choosing which es6 >>> >> style/design-pattern to employ and stick with before coding even >>> >> begins. many of us wish there were less choices, like python (and a >>> >> more assertive tc39 that makes clear certain proposals are >>> >> productivity-negative and not open for debate) so we could get on with >>> >> the actual coding-part. >>> >> >>> >> from a senior-engineer / technical-manager perspective, it also >>> >> doesn't help in managing an entire web-project; comprised of dozens of >>> >> sub-components that you didn't all write yourself; and having to >>> >> context-switch for each sub-component's quirky es6/es7/es8/es9 >>> >> style-guide/design-pattern. >>> >> >>> >> On 3/4/18, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > Just thought I'd point out that the proposal itself entertains the >>> >> > possibility of a corresponding composition proposal [1]. Also, in my >>> >> > proposal, one of my "potential expansions" [2] would open a generic >>> >> > door for "lifting" over a type, addressing the concern of >>> >> > extensibility. (It's not ideal, and I just filed an issue in my repo >>> >> > for that, but that's orthogonal.) >>> >> > >>> >> > [1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator# >>> >> related-proposals >>> >> > [2]: >>> >> > https://github.com/isiahmeadows/function-composition-proposa >>> l#possible- >>> >> expansions >>> >> > >>> >> > ----- >>> >> > >>> >> > 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 Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Naveen Chawla < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> Although it doesn't allow composition with generator functions like >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> composition proposal does, otherwise it's a pretty good solution. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> My only concern with pipeline is that since it offers a different >>> way >>> >> >> of >>> >> >> calling functions than the `()` syntax, it can lead to mixed and >>> hence >>> >> >> slightly more confusing code when both `()` and `|>` are used. For >>> >> example >>> >> >> multi arg and no-arg functions would still use `()`, and single arg >>> >> >> functions may or may not use `|>` depending on whether or not they >>> may >>> >> >> prospectively use a pipeline. The composition operator doesn't >>> >> >> supersede >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> `()` syntax in any context, and so it could be argued it would >>> lead to >>> >> >> more >>> >> >> consistent, more readable code. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 15:02 Peter Jaszkowiak <[email protected] >>> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I'd like to point out the partial application operator: >>> >> >>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-partial-application >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Sounds like the combination of pipeline + partial application >>> would >>> >> >>> result >>> >> >>> in what is essentially the same as function composition operator: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> ``` >>> >> >>> const h = ? |> f |> g; >>> >> >>> ``` >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Which results in `h` being the composition `g • f`. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Feb 24, 2018 02:21, "Naveen Chawla" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> That could be a problem for readability. >>> >> >>> I agree with the rest of what you said. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 11:16 Viktor Kronvall < >>> >> [email protected]> >>> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> I don’t know the implications but I could easily imagine the >>> >> >>>> pipeline >>> >> >>>> proposal being extended to not taking any input on the left hand >>> >> >>>> side >>> >> >>>> and >>> >> >>>> effectively represent composition in the opposite direction. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> For example: >>> >> >>>> ``` >>> >> >>>> let h = |> f |> g >>> >> >>>> h(2) //g(f(2)) >>> >> >>>> ``` >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> That said, the point holds for the proposal in its current state. >>> >> Being >>> >> >>>> able to compose functions >>> >> >>>> leads to much more expressivity than if you have >>> >> >>>> to call the pipeline (and collapse) where it is defined. >>> >> >>>> 2018年2月24日(土) 14:32 Naveen Chawla <[email protected]>: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> The function composition operator composes function pipelines >>> into >>> >> >>>>> functions for later use and/or further composition. Those >>> functions >>> >> >>>>> still >>> >> >>>>> need to be called via the existing `()` syntax, so it doesn't >>> offer >>> >> >>>>> a >>> >> >>>>> different way of calling functions as such. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> The function pipeline operator calls the function pipeline >>> >> immediately, >>> >> >>>>> so it is really only a different way of calling functions. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 at 12:37 Jordan Harband <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> How is either operator not "a different way of calling >>> functions"? >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Naveen Chawla < >>> >> [email protected]> >>> >> >>>>>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I was just thinking about the relative merits and coexistence >>> (or >>> >> >>>>>>> not) >>> >> >>>>>>> of function composition operator and function pipeline >>> operator >>> >> >>>>>>> features: >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> e.g. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator- >>> for- >>> >> function-composition >>> >> >>>>>>> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> They can of course co-exist, but there is overlap only in the >>> >> respect >>> >> >>>>>>> that both allow function pipelines to be called from left to >>> >> >>>>>>> right >>> >> >>>>>>> (except >>> >> >>>>>>> the input parameter in the case of the composition feature, >>> which >>> >> >>>>>>> requires >>> >> >>>>>>> existing bracket syntax to be used to call it). If one were >>> to be >>> >> >>>>>>> chosen, >>> >> >>>>>>> would say that a function composition operator adds a whole >>> new >>> >> >>>>>>> dimension of >>> >> >>>>>>> expressive power to the language, whereas a pipeline operator >>> >> >>>>>>> only >>> >> >>>>>>> offers a >>> >> >>>>>>> different way of calling functions. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I was wondering about all of your thoughts about whether you'd >>> >> prefer >>> >> >>>>>>> only the pipeline operator, only the composition operator, or >>> >> >>>>>>> both, >>> >> >>>>>>> or >>> >> >>>>>>> neither to be added to the language (these are pretty much all >>> >> >>>>>>> the >>> >> >>>>>>> possibilities), and why. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > 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 > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
