Re: Optional Curly Braces in JavaScript
> C# had these feature but still the scientific community went for > Python and not C#. C# is a explicitly compiled language. And a Windows language. (Mono is irrelevant, it would be a huge dependency.) Next? ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Optional Curly Braces in JavaScript
> People are more inclined to go for readable and less verbose > languages You keep saying that's *the reason* scientific and data-scientific community prefers Python but haven't provided evidence, continuing to sidestep: ● Python's intrinsic support for large numbers ● Python's strong typing ● Python's I/O support ● as Kai mentioned, Python's built-in persistence layer You might argue that Python's robust scientific library support was merely a *consequence* of the above advantages, but you can't ignore these advantages. If I were a research scientist there's no way I would use JS just because it had magic whitespace. It's not the tool for the job. JS doesn't have to worry about being used *literally* everywhere, it already is used *essentially* everywhere. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Optional Curly Braces in JavaScript
The single character _ *is already a valid identifier* as Ron said. And not an obscure one (not that that would matter) but rather *the global object used by the Underscore library*. You might as well be using $ here and trying to convince people to stop using it as the top level of their library. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Optional Curly Braces in JavaScript
> the only thing really missing (and which python has) is a builtin > wasm-sqlite3 library (and specialized/secure file-api's to persist > sqlite-db-blobs). Browsers (WPWG, not this group) tried WebSQL. It failed because there wasn't a competitive bake-off with any other implementations _besides_ SQLite. If a browser vendor had used another engine, then SQLite might've won the bake-off and now you'd have what you describe. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Optional Curly Braces in JavaScript
> I don't see any reason why Python is widely used in math and > science… Should talk to longtime Python peeps about it, it's not just "easy" or they'd be using VB6! Let me leave this here: Python has had bignum (arbitrary precision Integers) since 2008. Even before that, it had Long (not just Double). V8 (used as a reference for non-browser development) has had BigInt since... 2018. — S. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Proposal: Selector/Select Expression
E-40 uses the preferred pronouns he/him/his. There's no need to muddy the (40) Waters here. —— Sandy ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Proposal: native XML object support.
> I don't think we can say that we live in a JSON centric world But we do. It's not that there aren't powerful XML-based applications still being developed. And XML still buttresses some of the most important back-end components of the modern (as well as ancient) web. But surely you cannot have missed the fact that modern API development has so standardized on JSON that one doesn't even need to mention the response type anymore! In any case, if E4X died back when we all used XML all the time, it seems vanishingly unlikely that it would come back now… but I'm not on TC39 so this is just my take. —— S. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Proposal: native XML object support.
> let foo = This is a retread of E4X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_for_XML) so I can't imagine it would be resuscitated in a (for better or worse) JSON-centric world. —— Sandy ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Array.prototype.remove(item)
> You need to cite your sources > hi Sandy, sure hear are 2 sources: So you believe these 2 patches prove "most of the tech debt" across all JavaScript product development is due to this factor. Huh. Well, to each their own as far as how "proof" works. I prefer the classical definition. You know, the one where you use the actual population you're generalizing about. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Array.prototype.remove(item)
You need to cite your sources for the claim that "most of the tech debt" in JavaScript product development is due to accidentally using types other than 20-year-old built-ins and having to figure out the daunting task of JSON serialization. —— Sandy ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Proposal: Phase-Invariant Einno Soliton Templates
> I personally would prefer that these proposals are specified in terms > of *what's actually being proposed* I think what's actually being proposed is that we fall for a troll. Possibly an academic troll who will later ridicule its victims, viz. the Social Text scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair). A pity, since I love receiving this list to graze over your and others' intelligent and serious comments on the future of the language. —— Sandy ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
