61–70 of 83 posts
Does anyone know if decorators made it in? I can't find them via the search at first glance. I'm guessing they're listed under a different name/section than I thought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
They should be working to make JS smaller and simpler and better. Focus on the philosophy of what JS should be. People instead tend to focus on 'new features'. The power in JS is functional programming. For instance, grafting on Classes, was a mistake. They may focus on concepts like, how do we make sure we never create two ways to do the same thing - instead of how do we incorporate this new thing.
In general this seems to be the approach of ES these days. They take ideas that have been proven or at least prototyped in userland JS or compile-to-JS languages like CoffeeScript and now Babel, and clean them up.
If they didn't push the language forward the community would continue to fragment as other compile-to-JS languages filled that demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
We should just call it ES15 and ES16.
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
Even http://caniuse.com/#feat=arrow-functions says:
> See support for arrow functions (ECMAScript 6)Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Yeah, I was referring to new feature in ES2015/ES6, but really I mean just new ES features in general are good. It's just the naming that's problematic. Even http://caniuse.com/#feat=arrow-functions says: > See support for arrow functions (ECMAScript 6)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing a language with a platform. The language specs of the languages you mentioned do not have file system semantics included
I'm not confusing anything here. Unless a language has a platform specific API it typically gets bundled into the language specifications itself to ensure consistent interfaces and to force implementations to match a set standard. C++'s STL is part of its specification. Python has a library reference outlining the interfaces their standard libraries must include. You're still thinking in browser world. In a browser w…
They should be working to make JS smaller and simpler and better. Focus on the philosophy of what JS should be. People instead tend to focus on 'new features'. The power in JS is functional programming. For instance, grafting on Classes, was a mistake. They may focus on concepts like, how do we make sure we never create two ways to do the same thing - instead of how do we incorporate this new thing.