Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#41

Post by dpweb » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

As someone who writes ALOT of vanilla JS and doesn't really get into the new fangled frameworks, tools, transpiling..

Two things: template strings and arrow functions. Async is life-changing, but lack of support - can't use it yet.. Greatest feature since XMLHttpRequest IMO.

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#42

Post by tannhaeuser » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

I'll be waiting till async/await (ES7 maybe?) is available natively in browsers and node.js and its error handling story is cleaned up. Right now, in node.js if you're using streams2/3, it's quite the mess to recover gracefully already. Future of exception domains in node.js isn't clear to me either. Also, browsers aren't there yet either (eg. Fetch API error handling and aborting).

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#43

Post by tcrews » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:24 PM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #24

By "targeting ES6" do you mean writing ES6 and transpiling to ES5, or actually shipping ES6 to browsers?

Exactly! Shipping ES6 code to browsers.

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#44

Post by spinlock » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

simlevesque wrote: post #29

My code runs on Node >6.9.1 so it's really a no-brainer. The synthax is clearly superior.

You know what's weird, I don't like the arrow functions in es6. And, I'm a coffeescript guy. I just don't like that the syntax is conditional on so many different things. The number of parameters, line length, etc...

I just wrote this function and used `function` rather than `=>` because I couldn't get the syntax right using an arrow function:

    const showTable = ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce(
      function (previous, channel) { return previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]); },
      false
    );

Of course, the inconsistencies are what I don't like about js in general.

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#45

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:08 PM UTC

vdnkh wrote: post #38

modularfurnitur wrote: post #3

How would you rationalize not using ES6?

Polyfills add a ton of size. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3JJ8qSIg2k

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#46

Post by iso-8859-1 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #44

simlevesque wrote: post #29

My code runs on Node >6.9.1 so it's really a no-brainer. The synthax is clearly superior.

You know what's weird, I don't like the arrow functions in es6. And, I'm a coffeescript guy. I just don't like that the syntax is conditional on so many different things. The number of parameters, line length, etc... I just wrote this function and used `function` rather than `=>` because I couldn't get the syntax right using an arrow function: const showTable = ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce( function (previous…

It's not that hard...

    ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce(
      (previous, channel) => previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]),
      false
    );

But I'd prefer the more readable:

    const hasNoEmail = /^\s*$/.test(institution.email || '');
    const hasNoPhone = /^\s*$/.test(institution.phone || '');
    const hasNoWebsite = /^\s*$/.test(institution.website || '');
    const hasAny = !(hasNoEmail && hasNoPhone && hasNoWebsite);

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#47

Post by charrondev » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #44

simlevesque wrote: post #29

My code runs on Node >6.9.1 so it's really a no-brainer. The synthax is clearly superior.

You know what's weird, I don't like the arrow functions in es6. And, I'm a coffeescript guy. I just don't like that the syntax is conditional on so many different things. The number of parameters, line length, etc... I just wrote this function and used `function` rather than `=>` because I couldn't get the syntax right using an arrow function: const showTable = ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce( function (previous…

Well for one you're missing a closing } in that function. But you could just do

  const showTable = ["email", "phone","website"]
    .reduce((previous, channel) => { return previous || !!institution[channel] &&    !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel])
  }), false)

You can always just replace

  function() {

with

  () => {

and the only difference between the two would be binding this. Or you could do this:

  const showsTable = ["email", "phone", "website"]
    .reduce((previous, channel) => previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]), false)

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#48

Post by charrondev » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

I'm working on something that will be solely an electron app, so I'm using typescript and targeting ES6. Besides the bundling, the resulting code looks very similar to the typescript code minus the types.

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#49

Post by tal_berzniz » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

If you want to attract the best talent and not lose the good engineers you already have, keeping up with the times is a must. ES6 is one major advancement for front-end developers and they want to be part of it

Re: Ask HN: If you targetting ES6 by default, how did you rationalize that choice?

#50

Post by kevincennis » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 10:00 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #44

simlevesque wrote: post #29

My code runs on Node >6.9.1 so it's really a no-brainer. The synthax is clearly superior.

You know what's weird, I don't like the arrow functions in es6. And, I'm a coffeescript guy. I just don't like that the syntax is conditional on so many different things. The number of parameters, line length, etc... I just wrote this function and used `function` rather than `=>` because I couldn't get the syntax right using an arrow function: const showTable = ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce( function (previous…

FWIW, Array.prototype.some() would probably be more idiomatic here.