On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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#
<https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator#>
>> related-proposals
>> > [2]:
>> >
https://github.com/isiahmeadows/function-composition-proposal#possible-
<https://github.com/isiahmeadows/function-composition-proposal#possible->
>> expansions
>> >
>> > -----
>> >
>> > Isiah Meadows
>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
>> > Send me an email and we can get started.
>> > www.isiahmeadows.com <http://www.isiahmeadows.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Naveen Chawla
<[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to point out the partial application
operator:
>> >>>
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-partial-application
<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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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-
<https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for->
>> function-composition
>> >>>>>>>
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator
<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]
<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] <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] <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>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
