Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
github.com
Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
1–10 of 437 posts
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#2I love the pipe operator in Elixir!
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#3They should have stuck with the F# proposal. The hack proposal just takes one more giant step toward turning JS into Perl.
Hack proposal
value |> foo(%) for unary function calls,
value |> foo(1, %) for n-ary function calls,
value |> %.foo() for method calls,
value |> % + 1 for arithmetic,
value |> [%, 0] for array literals,
value |> {foo: %} for object literals,
value |> `${%}` for template literals,
value |> new Foo(%) for constructing objects,
value |> await % for awaiting promises,
value |> (yield %) for yielding generator values,
value |> import(%) for calling function-like keywords,
value |> x=> x.foo() for method calls,
value |> x=> x + 1 for arithmetic,
value |> x=> [x, 0] for array literals,
value |> x=> ({foo: x}) for object literals,
value |> x=> `${x}` for template literals,
value |> x=> new Foo(x) for constructing objects,
value |> x=> import(x) for calling function-like keywords,
I'd rather do await/yield the old fashioned way (or slightly complicate the already complex JS syntax rules) than add the weird extra syntax. Arrow functions are elegant and already well-known and well-understood.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#4I don't see how syntactic sugar makes any sense for javascript. Breaking compatibility is so severe because every browser needs to catch up, yet it doesn't actually enable anything that couldn't be done before.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#5To give credit where it's due. I came across the proposal through this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1FvtIJ6ecE by Theo the CEO of Ping.gg.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#6I'm pretty sure this'd be a welcome addition to the language but to be honest, the syntax looks shit.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#7Please god no more...
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#8I love the pipe operator in Elixir!
The current JS one isn't as nice as the Elixir one, at least it wasn't when I tried using it via Babel a couple yrs ago.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#9I don't see how syntactic sugar makes any sense for javascript. Breaking compatibility is so severe because every browser needs to catch up, yet it doesn't actually enable anything that couldn't be done before.
It lets a transpiler like Babel or Typescript use the new syntax and output the equivalent code that works on older browser.
Same reason async/await was useful far before there was native browser support - you could immediately use it in your codebase and compile to a legacy browser target.
Re: Pipe Operator (|>) For JavaScript
#10I don't see how syntactic sugar makes any sense for javascript. Breaking compatibility is so severe because every browser needs to catch up, yet it doesn't actually enable anything that couldn't be done before.
It lets a transpiler like Babel or Typescript use the new syntax and output the equivalent code that works on older browser. Same reason async/await was useful far before there was native browser support - you could immediately use it in your codebase and compile to a legacy browser target.
If you're compiling to javascript anyway, why would you need a pipe operator in javascript instead of just nesting the function calls?