Recent language addition suggestions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Recent language addition suggestions

Isiah Meadows-2
I've noticed lately that a lot of heavy syntax proposals [1] [2] [3]
have lately started appearing here that would only appeal to a small
niche audience (and not likely garner general use), and are more like
a "it'd be nice if we could write this instead" without much other
benefit. I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
realizing the added complexity of new language features, applying a
much higher bar than this. [4]

(If you really want features like those, check out Sweet.js, or maybe
write an Acorn plugin or a Babylon/Esprima fork.)

[1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/functional-operators
[2]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/quoted-map-keys-was-re-json5
[3]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/a-twist-on-functional-operatorsr
[4]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-tragedy-of-the-common-lisp-or-why-large-languages-explode-was-revive-let-blocks

-----

Isiah Meadows
[hidden email]

Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
www.isiahmeadows.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

kai zhu
+1

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Isiah Meadows <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've noticed lately that a lot of heavy syntax proposals [1] [2] [3]
> have lately started appearing here that would only appeal to a small
> niche audience (and not likely garner general use), and are more like
> a "it'd be nice if we could write this instead" without much other
> benefit. I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
> feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
> realizing the added complexity of new language features, applying a
> much higher bar than this. [4]
>
> (If you really want features like those, check out Sweet.js, or maybe
> write an Acorn plugin or a Babylon/Esprima fork.)
>
> [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/functional-operators
> [2]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/quoted-map-keys-was-re-json5
> [3]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/a-twist-on-functional-operatorsr
> [4]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-tragedy-of-the-common-lisp-or-why-large-languages-explode-was-revive-let-blocks
>
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> [hidden email]
>
> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
> Send me an email and we can get started.
> www.isiahmeadows.com
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Don Griffin
+2 :)

Best,
Don
--
Don Griffin
Sr Director of Engineering
Sencha, Inc.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:29 AM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Isiah Meadows <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've noticed lately that a lot of heavy syntax proposals [1] [2] [3]
> have lately started appearing here that would only appeal to a small
> niche audience (and not likely garner general use), and are more like
> a "it'd be nice if we could write this instead" without much other
> benefit. I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
> feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
> realizing the added complexity of new language features, applying a
> much higher bar than this. [4]
>
> (If you really want features like those, check out Sweet.js, or maybe
> write an Acorn plugin or a Babylon/Esprima fork.)
>
> [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/functional-operators
> [2]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/quoted-map-keys-was-re-json5
> [3]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/a-twist-on-functional-operatorsr
> [4]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/the-tragedy-of-the-common-lisp-or-why-large-languages-explode-was-revive-let-blocks
>
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> [hidden email]
>
> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
> Send me an email and we can get started.
> www.isiahmeadows.com
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Mike Samuel
In reply to this post by Isiah Meadows-2
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Isiah Meadows <[hidden email]> wrote:
> realizing the added complexity of new language features, applying a
> much higher bar than this. [4]
>
> (If you really want features like those, check out Sweet.js, or maybe
> write an Acorn plugin or a Babylon/Esprima fork.)

+1

> [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/functional-operators
> [2]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/quoted-map-keys-was-re-json5

I'm against the JSON5/JSON6/TOML proposal because I think it's
premature, but I don't think it should be rejected for being an extra
syntax proposal in the sense that it doesn't change the result of
parsing a script, module, or expression (modulo ch. 16 early errors).
It's an extra builtin proposal.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

kai zhu
> I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
> feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
> realizing the added complexity of new language features

my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more difficult and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come. javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so comes at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Mike Samuel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Isiah Meadows <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> realizing the added complexity of new language features, applying a
>> much higher bar than this. [4]
>>
>> (If you really want features like those, check out Sweet.js, or maybe
>> write an Acorn plugin or a Babylon/Esprima fork.)
>
> +1
>
>> [1]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/functional-operators
>> [2]: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/quoted-map-keys-was-re-json5
>
> I'm against the JSON5/JSON6/TOML proposal because I think it's
> premature, but I don't think it should be rejected for being an extra
> syntax proposal in the sense that it doesn't change the result of
> parsing a script, module, or expression (modulo ch. 16 early errors).
> It's an extra builtin proposal.
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

T.J. Crowder-2
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
> feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
> realizing the added complexity of new language features

my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more difficult and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come. javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so comes at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.

Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that.

-- T.J. Crowder

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Naveen Chawla
A note on "largeness" of languages.

New features that represent a new way of doing things that are simpler to code, read/understand and maintain while offering all the same or even more power are a good thing. It allows ever increasingly complex technical ambitions to be achieved ever quicker.

As code bases transition to the "new" way, the old stuff is hardly seen any more. It is only preserved for backwards compatibility. New code can be written entirely in the new way, which means the old stuff is nowhere to be seen.

(e.g. "prototype", anonymous "function" declarations (as opposed to arrow functions), "var", "then" callbacks on promises (as opposed to await) etc. are gradually becoming relics, which is a good thing)
 
As such, the set of features in ideal usage doesn't necessarily grow just because these new ways are devised and implemented!

Old code can stay as it is and continue to work thanks to backwards compatibility, so nobody should get hurt by aggressive introduction of new features in ES that palpably allow ever quicker and quicker productivity for those that opt to use them instead!

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 22:58 T.J. Crowder <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
> feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
> realizing the added complexity of new language features

my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more difficult and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come. javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so comes at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.

Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that.

-- T.J. Crowder
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

田生.
"backwards compatibility" is a nice thing. But making a language
larger just means harder to be backwards compatibility.

Supporting of more features do not mean more productive. Good features
do contribute to productive. But there are more features just make
things complex and less productive.

I'd like to see more "new" things. But I'd also like to see it just
keeps simple.

2017-07-19 13:33 GMT+08:00, Naveen Chawla <[hidden email]>:

> A note on "largeness" of languages.
>
> New features that represent a new way of doing things that are simpler to
> code, read/understand and maintain while offering all the same or even more
> power are a good thing. It allows ever increasingly complex technical
> ambitions to be achieved ever quicker.
>
> As code bases transition to the "new" way, the old stuff is hardly seen any
> more. It is only preserved for backwards compatibility. New code can be
> written entirely in the new way, which means the old stuff is nowhere to be
> seen.
>
> (e.g. "prototype", anonymous "function" declarations (as opposed to arrow
> functions), "var", "then" callbacks on promises (as opposed to await) etc.
> are gradually becoming relics, which is a good thing)
>
> As such, the set of features in ideal usage doesn't necessarily grow just
> because these new ways are devised and implemented!
>
> Old code can stay as it is and continue to work thanks to backwards
> compatibility, so nobody should get hurt by aggressive introduction of new
> features in ES that palpably allow ever quicker and quicker productivity
> for those that opt to use them instead!
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 22:58 T.J. Crowder <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
>>> > feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
>>> > realizing the added complexity of new language features
>>>
>>> my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the
>>> world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more
>>> difficult
>>> and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come.
>>> javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so
>>> comes
>>> at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.
>>>
>>
>> Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that.
>>
>> -- T.J. Crowder
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Gil Tayar-2

Note that the initial discussion was not about not adding features or yes adding features. It was about adding niche and convenience feature that will help only in niche situations.

So, IMHO, adding features like async await that benefit everybody and change the language in a meaningful way, yes. Adding small convenience feature that can be implemented in a library, usually no.

- Gil


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017, 08:53 田生. <[hidden email]> wrote:
"backwards compatibility" is a nice thing. But making a language
larger just means harder to be backwards compatibility.

Supporting of more features do not mean more productive. Good features
do contribute to productive. But there are more features just make
things complex and less productive.

I'd like to see more "new" things. But I'd also like to see it just
keeps simple.

2017-07-19 13:33 GMT+08:00, Naveen Chawla <[hidden email]>:
> A note on "largeness" of languages.
>
> New features that represent a new way of doing things that are simpler to
> code, read/understand and maintain while offering all the same or even more
> power are a good thing. It allows ever increasingly complex technical
> ambitions to be achieved ever quicker.
>
> As code bases transition to the "new" way, the old stuff is hardly seen any
> more. It is only preserved for backwards compatibility. New code can be
> written entirely in the new way, which means the old stuff is nowhere to be
> seen.
>
> (e.g. "prototype", anonymous "function" declarations (as opposed to arrow
> functions), "var", "then" callbacks on promises (as opposed to await) etc.
> are gradually becoming relics, which is a good thing)
>
> As such, the set of features in ideal usage doesn't necessarily grow just
> because these new ways are devised and implemented!
>
> Old code can stay as it is and continue to work thanks to backwards
> compatibility, so nobody should get hurt by aggressive introduction of new
> features in ES that palpably allow ever quicker and quicker productivity
> for those that opt to use them instead!
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 22:58 T.J. Crowder <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
>>> > feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
>>> > realizing the added complexity of new language features
>>>
>>> my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the
>>> world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more
>>> difficult
>>> and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come.
>>> javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so
>>> comes
>>> at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.
>>>
>>
>> Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that.
>>
>> -- T.J. Crowder
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

J Decker


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Gil Tayar <[hidden email]> wrote:

Note that the initial discussion was not about not adding features or yes adding features. It was about adding niche and convenience feature that will help only in niche situations.



extra builtins Object.values and Object.entries somehow made it in.
These are both easy enough to accomplish with two lines of code; and they certainly didn't make me go 'oh, that would have been useful at...' 
 

So, IMHO, adding features like async await that benefit everybody and change the language in a meaningful way, yes. Adding small convenience feature that can be implemented in a library, usually no.

- Gil


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017, 08:53 田生. <[hidden email]> wrote:
"backwards compatibility" is a nice thing. But making a language
larger just means harder to be backwards compatibility.

Supporting of more features do not mean more productive. Good features
do contribute to productive. But there are more features just make
things complex and less productive.

I'd like to see more "new" things. But I'd also like to see it just
keeps simple.

2017-07-19 13:33 GMT+08:00, Naveen Chawla <[hidden email]>:
> A note on "largeness" of languages.
>
> New features that represent a new way of doing things that are simpler to
> code, read/understand and maintain while offering all the same or even more
> power are a good thing. It allows ever increasingly complex technical
> ambitions to be achieved ever quicker.
>
> As code bases transition to the "new" way, the old stuff is hardly seen any
> more. It is only preserved for backwards compatibility. New code can be
> written entirely in the new way, which means the old stuff is nowhere to be
> seen.
>
> (e.g. "prototype", anonymous "function" declarations (as opposed to arrow
> functions), "var", "then" callbacks on promises (as opposed to await) etc.
> are gradually becoming relics, which is a good thing)
>
> As such, the set of features in ideal usage doesn't necessarily grow just
> because these new ways are devised and implemented!
>
> Old code can stay as it is and continue to work thanks to backwards
> compatibility, so nobody should get hurt by aggressive introduction of new
> features in ES that palpably allow ever quicker and quicker productivity
> for those that opt to use them instead!
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 at 22:58 T.J. Crowder <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, kai zhu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would like to note that JavaScript is already starting to
>>> > feel a bit large, and we should definitely take greater care on
>>> > realizing the added complexity of new language features
>>>
>>> my personal opinion is that es6 was a net-negative creating chaos in the
>>> world of frontend-development (making virtually everything more
>>> difficult
>>> and complicated and buggier) that will haunt us for years to come.
>>> javascript is NOT a general-purpose language, if trying to make it so
>>> comes
>>> at the cost of breaking the world-wide-web.
>>>
>>
>> Couldn't disagree more with just about all of that.
>>
>> -- T.J. Crowder
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Mike Samuel
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, J Decker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Gil Tayar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the initial discussion was not about not adding features or yes
>> adding features. It was about adding niche and convenience feature that will
>> help only in niche situations.
>
>
> oh, you mean like...( accoding to
> https://medium.com/@flaviohfreitas/es8-the-new-features-of-javascript-7506210a1a22
> )

> extra builtins Object.values and Object.entries somehow made it in.
> These are both easy enough to accomplish with two lines of code; and they
> certainly didn't make me go 'oh, that would have been useful at...'

The first line of the original post is "I've noticed lately that a lot
of heavy syntax proposals ...," so I'm pretty sure they don't mean
that.
Object.values and Object.entries require no new syntax.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

Jordan Harband
Take a look at the polyfills for both (linked from the proposal repo readme) - it's not two lines of code, it's not easy to do correctly, and both values and entries are a significantly common use case - which was part of the onus for getting them in the language in the first place.

Can we please not use es-discuss to just naively and loudly complain about things? It's not productive or friendly.

Isiah's initial message is a useful way to think about any proposal, syntax or otherwise, even *before* suggesting it to anyone, and to think about what the context might be if/when it's discussed in committee.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Mike Samuel <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:40 AM, J Decker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Gil Tayar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Note that the initial discussion was not about not adding features or yes
>> adding features. It was about adding niche and convenience feature that will
>> help only in niche situations.
>
>
> oh, you mean like...( accoding to
> https://medium.com/@flaviohfreitas/es8-the-new-features-of-javascript-7506210a1a22
> )

> extra builtins Object.values and Object.entries somehow made it in.
> These are both easy enough to accomplish with two lines of code; and they
> certainly didn't make me go 'oh, that would have been useful at...'

The first line of the original post is "I've noticed lately that a lot
of heavy syntax proposals ...," so I'm pretty sure they don't mean
that.
Object.values and Object.entries require no new syntax.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recent language addition suggestions

T.J. Crowder-2
> Can we please not use es-discuss to just naively and loudly
> complain about things? It's not productive or friendly.

+1

-- T.J. Crowder

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Loading...