Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread Isiah Meadows
Thought I'd clarify why I brought TypeScript in from: - TypeScript in of itself is *not* a problem. - Angular's use and embrace of TypeScript in of itself is *not* a problem. - TypeScript was more of a tangentially related side detail. I was only referring to Angular embracing a stage 2

Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread kdex
This was kind of the original idea around Dart IIRC. It didn't see much traction though, and eventually got called off. On Monday, July 24, 2017 1:56:53 AM CEST doodad-js Admin wrote: > And more, engines could signal they support JS 2 just by the Accept header! > > -Original Message- >

Re: Inline variable dereferencing of object field names

2017-07-23 Thread Logan Smyth
Assuming in your first example you meant query.$pull[team] = userId; not query[team] = userId; then your second example is already valid a ES6 computed property and does exactly what you appear to be looking for. On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Sebastian Malton

Inline variable dereferencing of object field names

2017-07-23 Thread Sebastian Malton
When creating objects I think that having some notation to make the following easier to readlet query = {    $pull: {}};query[team] = userId;I was thinking of borrowing from the above notation and doing the following:let query = {    $pull: {        [team]: userId    }};

FW: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread doodad-js Admin
I'm dealing with 4 emails, so sometimes I don't select the good one and get rejected by es-discuss :) This is my latest email... Claude Petit -Original Message- From: Claude Petit [mailto:p...@webmail.us] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:01 PM To: 'doodad-js Admin' ;

Re: Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread David White
Sorry, just seen this thread and thought it worth mentioning a similar thread ongoing here that has derived from wanting to remove less popular features from the specification: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/removal-of-language-features We should definitely continue this conversation in this

Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread David White
Ooooh, a mime type based versioning would be very nice! `` For the most part you control your applications language decision and honour that with your bundle then load additional scripts you have little control over such as logging, monitoring, stats, etc in different runtimes perhaps. It’s

Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread kai zhu
> > The bottom line here is that browsers aren't a place for a type safe and > > correct language (well, thy could have been but hey, such is history). > > They're a medium to consume information over the internet. due to history, the hard-reality is that its impractical to write completely

Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread David White
That’s an interesting proposal but I’m struggling to think how that would solve this same issue 2 or 3 or 5 years down the line? JavaScript and browsers have a symmetry along with HTML, CSS... and given the disparity of devices today alone, let alone tomorrow a new major version would cause

RE: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread doodad-js Admin
To be honest, I started my own framework because of the lack of classical oop and a clear type system in JS. I know TypeScript, but that’s another language, not just a framework like mine. After that, ES6 classes has come to the surface, but they do not respond to my needs, and some choices on

RE: Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread doodad-js Admin
Maybe that's time to start a new major version of JS? -Original Message- From: David White [mailto:david.rhys.wh...@icloud.com] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 5:54 PM To: es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: Re: Re: Removal of language features Lots of good thoughts and discussions here, and

Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread kai zhu
> On Jul 23, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Vinnymac wrote: > > Above Steve mentions that many people are mixing language additions with > framework fatigue. I have to agree with him. In my case I am not overwhelmed > by any of the additions TC39 has chosen to make to ECMA. In fact it

Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread kdex
For the sake of keeping our discussions clear, could we all please refrain from flooding the entire mailing list's inbox with these unsubstantial "+1" or "-1" emails if they contain no meaningful contribution to the conversation? If you want to make a point, make your point. If not, don't.

Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread kai zhu
> On Jul 23, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Dante Federici > wrote: > > The bottom line here is that browsers aren't a place for a type safe and > correct language (well, thy could have been but hey, such is history). > They're a medium to consume information over the

Re: Return value of forEach

2017-07-23 Thread Naveen Chawla
Does anybody have any opinion on a new Array.prototype.each method that does the same as forEach but returns the array, thereby allowing chaining with sort, map, filter etc., while also preserving backwards compatibility? On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, 1:08 p.m. T.J. Crowder,

Re: Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread Dante Federici
A few times now you've proposed a "use _x_" syntax to achieve breaking changes to the language. "use strict" is more an attempt to condense the language and take a first pass best practice. Not a means of "versioning" JS. The bottom line here is that browsers aren't a place for a type safe and

Re: Removal of language features

2017-07-23 Thread T.J. Crowder
Massive +1 on Jordan's call for increased civility and cleaner language. On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Vinnymac wrote: > Above Steve mentions that many people are mixing language additions > with framework fatigue. I have to agree with him. In my case I am not >

Re: Re: Add an easier method for slicing and stepping strings and arrays

2017-07-23 Thread Dante Federici
This feels like an attempt to get toward python's style of slice . Which I'm not opposed to, and would like to hear how it's better than just the method. ___ es-discuss mailing list

Re: Re: Add an easier method for slicing and stepping strings and arrays

2017-07-23 Thread Darien Valentine
Here are some related threads from the past: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/negative-indices-for-arrays https://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-slice-syntax https://esdiscuss.org/topic/javascript-language-feature-idea I think I’ve seen it mentioned a few other times too. The `arr[-1]` syntax is a

Re: JavaScript Versioning

2017-07-23 Thread Jordan Harband
I don't think a new mode is a good idea. On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Alexander Craggs < alexan...@debenclipper.com> wrote: > Huh, in which case I will! > > What are your thoughts on the non-error message part of this proposal? > > On 23/07/2017 06:34:48, Jordan Harband