On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > tldr - tc39 should focus more on JSON-friendly javascript-language-features > instead of wasting-time on hard-to-serialize classes/meta-programming.
This is a false dichotomy (the fallacy of the either/or choice). I'd agree we're approaching, or at, the need for the next thing after JSON, and that some focus on that would be a good thing. That doesn't mean stopping work on other good things. Perhaps you could take the lead on addressing the issues you run into. I'm sure constructive input would be welcomed. > my problem with tc39, is that they “claim” javascript is a general-purpose > language (and try to design it as such), when industry-wise, its really not. Yes, it is. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean others don't. And others have been telling you they see it differently repeatedly over a long period of time on this list. > if tc39 is sincerely > interested in keeping javascript a dominant/relevant language in industry, > they should focus on *practical* (vs *academic*) features `class` notation is practical (simplifying a common pattern and making it less error-prone). (I know you don't use that pattern. That's fine. But lots of people do, so it's practical for them whether you like the pattern or not.) Promises are practical (simplifying and standardizing callbacks, making them composable; again making them less error-prone). `async`/`await` is HUGELY practical, massively simplifying writing asynchronous code. Arrow functions, rest and spread, default parameter values -- all practical. (NOT trying to put words in your mouth, but if you were going to reply "Yes, but those problems could already be solved in others ways.", then: Sure, and we could all write assembly code, too. But it's *useful* to address these in the language.) All of them are useful beyond the web. All are also useful in web programming. I have no problem with skepticism of specific proposals. What I would find useful, though, would be a focus on the proposal's merits, rather than constant re-raising of this claim that JavaScript is a web-only language. You've made that claim, ad nauseum. My view is that it's been rejected by the list membership and by TC39, but whether that's true or I'm mistaken, please stop spamming the list with it. We all know how you feel about it. But again: I'm sure constructive, research-based input on how to deal with JSON issues related to (for instance) BigInt would be welcome in that BigInt thread and, ideally, eventually a proposal. There's no need for some big conceptual argument over the course of the language -- that *is* a waste of time. -- T.J. Crowder _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
