ECMAScript 6 looks promising
kishorelive.com
ECMAScript 6 looks promising
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#2Except for the inclusion of "let", it is looking like Python with braces.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#3Let keyword: good. The function scoping of vars is gruesome.
Default arguments: good. Clearly useful and already used a lot with the if (foo === undefined) foo = 'default' pattern.
Non-strict destructuring: bad. It's neither destructuring-bind nor pattern matching... If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to fail, dammit!
Multi-line strings: good, obviously.
Templating: hello, PHP! I thought we already know better.
List comprehension: useful.
My humble opinion: it's hopeless. A mix of useful and terrible features means it'll still be made out of "the good parts" and the awful rest.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#4Nice to see many of CoffeeScript's constructs coming to ECMAScript.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#5Except for the inclusion of "let", it is looking like Python with braces.
Yes, and David actually mentioned openly in that talk that they try to borrow good ideas from other languages if possible! There are templates from PHP too :)
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#6Let keyword: good. The function scoping of vars is gruesome. Default arguments: good. Clearly useful and already used a lot with the if (foo === undefined) foo = 'default' pattern. Non-strict destructuring: bad. It's neither destructuring-bind nor pattern matching... If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to fail , dammit! Multi-line strings: good, obviously. Templating: hello, PHP! I thought we already know…
To me this spec itself is a step in the right direction. There has been no major work towards improving JavaScript in a long long time. I left out in my post the part about modules (which will hopefully solve all the crazy 3rd party JS issues), because I have no idea when they will actually get implemented by the browser vendors. But, I am hoping that this will continue to evolve in future, instead of getting stagnated.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#7Except for the inclusion of "let", it is looking like Python with braces.
Yes, and David actually mentioned openly in that talk that they try to borrow good ideas from other languages if possible! There are templates from PHP too :)
Don't know much about PHP, but the templates also exist in Python.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#8Let keyword: good. The function scoping of vars is gruesome. Default arguments: good. Clearly useful and already used a lot with the if (foo === undefined) foo = 'default' pattern. Non-strict destructuring: bad. It's neither destructuring-bind nor pattern matching... If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to fail , dammit! Multi-line strings: good, obviously. Templating: hello, PHP! I thought we already know…
I don't know much about PHP, what's wrong with it regarding templating?
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#9Let keyword: good. The function scoping of vars is gruesome. Default arguments: good. Clearly useful and already used a lot with the if (foo === undefined) foo = 'default' pattern. Non-strict destructuring: bad. It's neither destructuring-bind nor pattern matching... If I destructure a 3-list to 2 vars, I want it to fail , dammit! Multi-line strings: good, obviously. Templating: hello, PHP! I thought we already know…
I don't know much about PHP, what's wrong with it regarding templating?
Automatic interpolation of variables into string literals is a bad idea IMHO.
Couple that with variable hoisting (function scope) and hilarity can ensue when variables defined further down a function influence the value of another variable that looks like it just contains a string literal.
Re: ECMAScript 6 looks promising
#10I think it will be really sad if we end up with a module system that's incompatible with CommonJS, which is the only such system that has gained any real traction.