Alberto, CoffeeScript is a popular language that is widely considered to represent JavaScript's best bits, and it only has anonymous functions, so there's a large part of the JS community that disagrees with you there.
Browsers actually do identify anonymous functions, based on the variable/property names that reference them, so the following function would be identified as `square` in tracebacks: let square = function(x) { return x * x }; In any case, passing anonymous functions to higher order functions is commonplace in real-world JS. Chris may be right about using decorators as a Pythonic alternative [I haven't really considered that properly to be honest], but you can't just tell people not to do something that they see as elegant and idiomatic. Best -- Carl Smith -- Carl Smith carl.in...@gmail.com On 12 August 2017 at 17:22, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 August 2017 at 06:10, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > > >> > Taking this off the list as it's no longer on topic. > > > > > > not totally -- I'm going to add my thoughts: > > > > 1) If you want a smoother transition between server-side Python and > > in-browser code, maybe you're better off using one of the "python in the > > browser" solutions -- there are at least a few viable ones. > > More experimentally, there's also toga's "web" backend (which allows > you to take an application you developed with the primary intention of > running it as a rich client application on mobile or desktop devices, > and instead publishing it as a Django web application with a > JavaScript frontend). > > Essentially, the relationship we see between Python and JavaScript is > similar to the one that exists between Python and C/C++/Rust/Go/etc, > just on the side that sits between the Python code and the GUI, rather > than between the Python code and the compute & storage systems. > > As such, there are various libraries and transpilers that are designed > to handle writing the JavaScript *for* you (bokeh, toga, > JavaScripthon, etc), and the emergence of WASM as a frontend > equivalent to machine code on the backend is only going to make the > similarities in those dynamics more pronounced. > > In that vein, it's highly *un*likely we'd add any redundant constructs > to Python purely to make it easier for JS developers to use JS idioms > in Python instead of Pythonic ones, but JavaScript *is* one of the > languages we look at for syntactic consistency when considering > potential new additions to Python. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/