On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are these > type-related features what the community of ECMAScript 3 programmers > were really asking for emphatically years ago?
No need to take a poll here. It's better to look at existing programs and examine whether a proposal for static type syntax would make them shorter at the function level and as a whole. Sufficiently shorter programs justify the implementation and standardization burden, because of the number of bugs that would go unwritten. I've seen and written enough allegedly functionally-enlightened JavaScript to know that programs written in that style usually spend a high proportion of lines doing type inspection at run time. It's usually what prevents such programs from being incredibly concise. Of course, it's certainly possible that any effective syntax for static types in ES could make programs longer and more verbose, so I don't think it's worth debating the notion in the abstract. Also, I think comparisons with Java miss the mark, since Java doesn't have lexical closures, first-class functions, convenient property access, or convenient object creation syntax, and on and on. Its type system is just one wart among many, and it's hard to isolate from the language's other flaws. - Rob _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
