On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 17:25, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
If so we are at an impasse. To get past it, we would need to agree on
declarative syntax and semantics preventing use before initialization. We
can try to do that again,
On Oct 4, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
I don't want to be pushy, so this is the last time that I'll mention
it, but if we can create something using the | operator that can
basically do what has been discussed for the simplest class literal,
I think you're barking up several wrong
Brendan, thanks for the follow up, I also discovered the existence of
bettween, great!
Russel,
ES4 part 2 is what I'd like to avoid too and this is my point indeed.
I am not saying that let, yeld, {block scope}, and destructuring is not
welcome and cool, these are all part already available
Le 03/10/2011 22:49, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
Dear All,
while I had the opportunity to ask directly to Brendan Eich this
question, I would like to ask you 5 minutes of your precious time to
understand common concerns from the JS community, summarized under my
point of view in this
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
I don't want to be pushy, so this is the last time that I'll mention
it, but if we can create something using the | operator that can
basically do what has been discussed
I'm sorry David, I just have to express a dissenting opinion here. While I
could see that better tooling! would be a positive side-effect of some
syntax suggestions, I think it's a overreaching idea to consider such a main
argument for adding new syntax.
You make a compelling argument of how
I'm sorry David, I just have to express a dissenting opinion here. While I
could see that better tooling! would be a positive side-effect of some
syntax suggestions, I think it's a overreaching idea to consider such a main
argument for adding new syntax.
You make a compelling argument of how
Yes, tools should be better, but they need to start becoming better by
themselves as previous discussions here have noted.
However, there are problems in the language that need to be addressed by
both syntax and APIs. We need:
- A sane way of dealing with equality, identity and basically a lot
Le 04/10/2011 15:43, Kyle Simpson a écrit :
I'm sorry David, I just have to express a dissenting opinion here.
There is no reason to be sorry. As I said at the end, we are different
within the same community. We have different need and views and
consequently, sometimes disagree. That's fine,
David, as I have tweeted before, syntax is a non problem, surely is not a
problem *now* because you already have alternatives such CoffeeScript, GWT,
Traceeur or any sort of transpiler you want ... do all these new syntax
bring real benefits to JavaScript ?
I am not sure, I never needed new
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
As much as every JavaScript advocate usually cringes at the comparison
of JavaScript to Java, it is a little funny that right now I think
they are in a little bit of the same situation. The JVM and JavaScript
are
On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On the other hand, I'd also hate to see ES4 part 2.
Having been there I can assure you that the current state of ES.next
development is nothing like ES4. The most import difference is that ES4
incorporated core concepts that were still
2011/10/4 David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr:
Le 03/10/2011 22:49, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
Dear All,
while I had the opportunity to ask directly to Brendan Eich this
question, I would like to ask you 5 minutes of your precious time to
understand common concerns from the JS community,
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
No it doesn't.
Just walk the object graph starting from the root object and let the
set of all reachable symbols be A.
Load jQuery
Walk the object graph again letting the set of all reachable symbols be B.
The public
2011/10/4 Russell Leggett russell.legg...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mike Samuel mikesam...@gmail.com wrote:
No it doesn't.
Just walk the object graph starting from the root object and let the
set of all reachable symbols be A.
Load jQuery
Walk the object graph again
Maybe it's time for me to chime in.
While I find it facilitating that so much meaning is being found in my tweet
I thought it might be productive to say what I actually meant by the
comment.
JavaScript's current (ECMA5) syntax has never prevented me from building an
application. I find
s/restructuring/destructuring
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe it's time for me to chime in.
While I find it facilitating that so much meaning is being found in my
tweet I thought it might be productive to say what I actually meant by the
+1
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe it's time for me to chime in.
While I find it facilitating that so much meaning is being found in my
tweet I thought it might be productive to say what I actually meant by the
comment.
JavaScript's
s/not taking as inspiration/now taking as inspiration
sorry for the typos, it's been a long hot day on this side of the world.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
s/restructuring/destructuring
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Mikeal Rogers
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Mikeal Rogers mikeal.rog...@gmail.comwrote:
My main concern with *some* of the proposals is that I feel they add
features and clever syntax for experts at the expense of keeping the
language easy to understand for new programmers.
It's hard to satisfy both
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
as it currently stands, a function is allowed to use both:
function f(a,b,c,...rest) {
g(...arguments);
h(...rest);
}
Rest parameters are capable of anything arguments objects are and
more, so what use case
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead of returning
the value that the body of the function returns, it returns a special
newly-created object.
Sorry, already you lost me ;-) I guess you mean the
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Sean Eagan seaneag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
as it currently stands, a function is allowed to use both:
function f(a,b,c,...rest) {
g(...arguments);
h(...rest);
}
Rest
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead of returning
the value that the body of the function returns, it returns a
Le 04/10/2011 18:51, Mike Samuel a écrit :
2011/10/4 David Bruant david.bru...@labri.fr:
Le 03/10/2011 22:49, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
Dear All,
while I had the opportunity to ask directly to Brendan Eich this
question, I would like to ask you 5 minutes of your precious time to
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function. Instead of returning
the value that the body of the function returns, it returns a
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, John J Barton johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
A constructor is different from a regular function.
In trying to update my JS approach I looked into 'traits'. I'm still on the
fence about using them at this stage, but MarkM was asking for feedback of
pretty much any kind so here is a little.
I believe I understand traits for the most part just from the info on the
Web site:
http://traitsjs.org/
28 matches
Mail list logo
