Many people, including me, would disagree. On matters of taste, I'd want the committee to listen to all interested parties and try to pick the solution that pleases the most people. That appears to be what's happening here.
Based on what evidence are "we" concluding that the majority of the javascript developers want -> syntax for functions? The fact that coffeescript is the hot buzzword? Was there some developer-community wide voting or poll that I missed? Or is it that a few vocal people on these lists like it, and that's being substituted as what the "majority" is in favor of?
I'm not just being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, on this and a variety of other matters related to what's being added to ES-next/harmony... It's clear Brendan (and other language cohorts) likes these new syntax sugars, but where is the evidence that suggests that all this new syntax sugar is the exact sugar that javascript developers want? Is it just enough that everyone at JSConf likes it, and thus that means that the whole community is assumed to be on board?
There's LOTS of examples where writing less JavaScript is more awesomer, but there's also plenty of examples of where writing less is much more uglier. I am troubled by the implication that just because we've found a shorter syntax sugar for functions, this unequivocally means it's better.
-> syntax being shorter is a clear and objective question. No doubt it's shorter. But is is prettier or more readable? According to who's opinion do we conclude that, because that seems pretty subjective.
--Kyle _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
