David Bruant wrote:
Le 16/08/2012 00:35, Rick Waldron a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Erik Reppen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Is consistent type return a heuristic carried over from more
strictly-typed paradigms or would it murder performance of the
native methods to do the logic required to return something like
null in these cases? In a dynamic language, why not focus on more
consistent return types across the board for an indicator that
you won't be getting particularly handy results?
It would break the web.
I agree and would like to encourage you (Erik) to read the foreword of
my "ECMAScript regrets" project
https://github.com/DavidBruant/ECMAScript-regrets#foreword
The only way forward to "fix" broken parts of JavaScript (like making
it more consistent) is to give up on JavaScript and create a new
language that compiles down to JavaScript. That's my opinion at least.
There's another way: extend JS with fixed forms and hope the broken ones
die eventually.
Both compile-to-JS and evolve-JS-to-be-better are happening, and the
former informs the latter directly (=> and for-of from CoffeeScript are
in ES6, e.g.). Both should, since JS is at this point a huge public
good, like it or not.
/be
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
