Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ECMAScript 2016 Approved

ecma-international.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#51

Post by BinaryIdiot »

aviraldg wrote: post #21
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, though jQuery has helped a lot to make some sort of "standard library", jQuery is mostly a better library for dealing with the DOM though. It has support for making network calls but those don't work in node without polyfills. > Though I guess this is what standards are for. I would like to see a browser try this anyways, though. That would be the fastest way to get the standards bodies to acknowledge the pro…

Did you try isomorphic-fetch ?

No; node and the browser provide APIs that do this already they're just very different so I simply wrapped them to avoid dependencies (it was pretty easy). But I knew of it and it's a good idea.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#52

Post by dangoor »

jsingleton wrote: post #48

So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Visual Studio. VS 2015 is the current version but VS 15 is the next one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

ECMAScript is going to be updated on an annual basis now, so it is easier to just use the year going forward.

Promises and arrow functions are ES2015 features, by the way. Already directly supported in a slight majority of the browsers in use: http://caniuse.com/#search=arrow

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#53

Post by BinaryIdiot »

espadrine wrote: post #29
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #3

I wish this contained a delta between the previous release and this release. It's difficult to find the differences just by skimming. Edit: apparently I hadn't realized that the changes were so few that what was in the outline really did cover everything. I thought it was a summation. My fault. That being said I continue to be disappointed in the built-in standard library of JavaScript. As far as I can tell ECMAScrip…

I concur; I wish for a delta to be made more explicit as a non-normative section. I added concise explanatory additions to the spec here: http://espadrine.github.io/New-In-A-Spec/es2016/ . Currently, the changes for ES2017 are the following: http://espadrine.github.io/New-In-A-Spec/es2017/ . File I/O means different things in different contexts. If implementing JS required a file system to be present, it would not be…

> If implementing JS required a file system to be present, it would not be possible to implement a spec-compliant JS in some environments.

Maybe? I think it would be really interesting to open that up for the web browser to a degree. It would need some sort of permission model but providing more, standard libraries that can interact with the system would make web applications more viable in certain types of projects (especially corporate).

Sure that opens it up to major, major security concerns but nothing that can't be overcome. But even so it could be part of the standard that certain pieces can become restricted when deployed into certain environments.

> That said, some level of convergence with Node.js would be welcome, starting with the now fragmented module loading mechanisms: var f = require('file') vs. import * as f from 'file'.

That would be awesome though this has been a known issue for quite a long time now and no one seems to really want to do much about it so I'm not sure what kind of effort it's going to take to make this happen.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#54

Post by rimunroe »

jsingleton wrote: post #48

So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Visual Studio. VS 2015 is the current version but VS 15 is the next one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

They decided on the "ECMAScript YYYY" naming format a while before the 2015 spec was finalized. Many people in the community continued to call things ES6 and ES7, but those aren't the official names.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#55

Post by jsingleton »

rimunroe wrote: post #54
jsingleton wrote: post #48

So, ECMAScript 2015 is ES6 and ECMAScript 2016 (this) is ES7 [0]. I like the new features (promises, arrow functions etc.) but the naming is as confusing as Visual Studio. VS 2015 is the current version but VS 15 is the next one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript

They decided on the "ECMAScript YYYY" naming format a while before the 2015 spec was finalized. Many people in the community continued to call things ES6 and ES7, but those aren't the official names.

I guess it's just a lot easier to type (and even say). For example, the current discussion on TypeScript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11920451

At least they didn't use 5 digit years. :)

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#56

Post by LionessLover »

jholman wrote: post #46
LionessLover wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is wrong. As is the use of "absolutely" - to show that you have the universe-opinion. What hubris. And it does not matter that some guy "himself" posted some opinion either. Right were you link to there are different opinions from other people that show more thought was put into them. The "pg" comment actually is the only one for your argument, all others are against!

pg wrote the site, pg is one of the owners of the site, pg was the only admin at the time that that comment was written. Admins/maintainers (dang) since then haven't disagreed. That makes it site policy, doesn't it? When you come to a new site, it's usually considered civil to learn the rules of that site, although of course I cannot force you to do so. For example, assuming that reddit rules apply on HN is kinda sil…

> pg wrote the site

What does ownership have to do with it?

That does not make him more right than any other human being.

Ownership means one can impose ones will, it does not mean you are omniscient.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#58

Post by astazangasta »

Karunamon wrote: post #47
LionessLover wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is wrong. As is the use of "absolutely" - to show that you have the universe-opinion. What hubris. And it does not matter that some guy "himself" posted some opinion either. Right were you link to there are different opinions from other people that show more thought was put into them. The "pg" comment actually is the only one for your argument, all others are against!

Well given that it's PG's site, I'd say his opinion is the only one that matters. Besides, votes are used for agreement more than for any other purpose, and given that there's no way to force people to not do this, let's just dispense with the fiction that they can ever mean anything else. "Please no downvote" is just noise.

Horsehit - mass opinion obviously matters a lot more on this subject, since there is no way to enforce our arbitrary kowtowing to Paul Graham's wisdom. What is he going to do, yell at us for down voting incorrectly?

This is our website. Maybe pg 'made' it, but we use it. If most of us disagree that is what will (and should in my opinion) happen.

Re: ECMAScript 2016 Approved

#59

Post by tlrobinson »

astazangasta wrote: post #58
Karunamon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well given that it's PG's site, I'd say his opinion is the only one that matters. Besides, votes are used for agreement more than for any other purpose, and given that there's no way to force people to not do this, let's just dispense with the fiction that they can ever mean anything else. "Please no downvote" is just noise.

Horsehit - mass opinion obviously matters a lot more on this subject, since there is no way to enforce our arbitrary kowtowing to Paul Graham's wisdom. What is he going to do, yell at us for down voting incorrectly? This is our website. Maybe pg 'made' it, but we use it. If most of us disagree that is what will (and should in my opinion) happen.

Hacker News has remained a relatively civil place for far longer than most online forums largely because of the policies pg and other admins have put in place.
Post reply on HN