styleguide sanity-check for tc39 language-proposals to address javascript-fatigue
These questions have consumed programmers in most languages since forever. It's not TC39's place to tell people how to write code - but there's plenty of style guides that have answers to these questions.
My opinions:
For existing code, just transition when encountering code, for convenience (no need to transition everything in a go).
For new code, always use await async where possible (very manageable vs callbacks) For new code, always use const (for references you don't expect to change) and let (for references you expect to change), and ditch var altogether (reason: var lets you accidentally override any global variables) For new code, always use fat arrow EXCEPT when using a library that relies on the use of "this" inside a function, where the "this" is different than the outer "this" (reason: more terse, and lets you access the outer "this"). Destructuring: as per your convenience. Pipeline: never unless they allow await in a pipeline (reason: could lead to inconsistency), otherwise always (instead of () for calling functions). However, pipeline operator is not yet accepted in the language.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:44 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
there are several factors for the current javascript-fatigue.
I don't believe any such thing exists.
es6/es7/es8 introduces hundreds of these kinds of questions which distract us from actual coding and shipping features.
I've certainly never been distracted by these things, other than in the
usual way ("Hmmm, in our house style are we always going to use () with
arrow functions even if there's only one parameter, like we always use
curly braces with if?"), which isn't significant and is certainly a
very small price to pay for the added utility of these features.
Including libraries? Fine, use the API they provide (callbacks or promises) or wrap that API if you don't like it but need the lib anyway, and certainly don't worry about the style the library uses in its code. No distraction.
Frankly, this just seems like you're trying once again to push your "JavaScript should have frozen in time as of ES3 or maybe ES5" agenda, which I don't think anyone else on this list shares.
-- T.J. Crowder
Frankly, this just seems like you're trying once again to push your "JavaScript should have frozen in time as of ES3 or maybe ES5" agenda, which I don't think anyone else on this list shares.
its a legitimate agenda from someone who cares deeply about javascript and believes es6 was a mistake and a step in the wrong-direction for javascript and frontend-development.
-kai
On Oct 18, 2017 3:02 PM, "T.J. Crowder" <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:44 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
there are several factors for the current javascript-fatigue.
I don't believe any such thing exists.
es6/es7/es8 introduces hundreds of these kinds of questions which distract us from actual coding and shipping features.
I've certainly never been distracted by these things, other than in the
usual way ("Hmmm, in our house style are we always going to use () with
arrow functions even if there's only one parameter, like we always use
curly braces with if?"), which isn't significant and is certainly a
very small price to pay for the added utility of these features.
Including libraries? Fine, use the API they provide (callbacks or
promises) or wrap that API if you don't like it but need the lib anyway, and certainly don't worry about the style the library uses in its code. No distraction.
Frankly, this just seems like you're trying once again to push your "JavaScript should have frozen in time as of ES3 or maybe ES5" agenda, which I don't think anyone else on this list shares.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:18 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
its a legitimate agenda from someone who cares deeply about javascript and believes es6 was a mistake and a step in the wrong-direction for javascript and frontend-development.
I won't get into an argument with you about ES2015+ except to say I
vehemently disagree with your conclusion, and challenge your
characterization that there's some kind of "fatigue." I'm constantly
meeting programmers who are thrilled with the new features -- three real
standouts are arrow functions, class syntax, and async/await. I show
async/await to people and they go crazy for it. "Whoo hoo, no more
callback hell!"
But the point is: The ship has sailed. Re-litigating decisions that have
been made is pointless and tiresome. When new proposals are made, it's
perfectly valid to raise issues with them if you think there are issues
(and perhaps cite concrete issues that have arisen from similar past
work to support that argument -- with data, not innuendo), but complaining
about arrow functions, let, Promises, etc., in October 2017 is not
useful. Those decisions were finalized years ago.
-- T.J. Crowder
The beauty of (coding) standards is that there are so many to choose from. :)
IMO it’s a false dichotomy though. A respected and credible group of language contributors should pool some energy together and ratify some opinionated best practices, a la the C++ Core Guidelines and PEP-8. No, it’s not necessary—neither is the exponent operator—but it does have clear benefits.
I believe most in the community would rather not have to sell things like “const by default” to their team members, when it could be “official” guidance instead. It’s energy we’d rather be spending on other things!
Alex
I disagree that the language contributors should be involved in best
practice guidance. Patterns evolve over usage and experience with the
constructs. I bet the implementors of && and || didn't necessarily
expect them to be used so effectively for non-boolean logic e.g. car && car.drive() instead of if(car!==undefined) car.drive() or whatever... Or
maybe they did. But the point is language usage is often a matter of
opinion and preference, and not something that should be set as a tide
against a possibly justifiable opposition. As a response to the original
question, I gave my opinion and reason in brackets. If the reader prefers a
different way for their own reasons, fine - I would just expect them to
give their own reasons for superseding my reasons...
In general, it's not the TC39 who should be dictating how code is
written - in particular, even they have their stylistic disagreements
(like with ASI and let vs const), and active TC39 representative
maintain both JSHint (opinionated) and ESLint (unopinionated).
Additionally, JSLint (the predecessor to JSHint) was created by a
formerly active TC39 representative. If you want to see more of these
broad stylistic disagreements, check out their meeting notes. A
few things that come to mind are decorators, cancellation, recent
class additions, and BigInt.
Instead, if you have your own strong opinions on everything, try
introducing ESLint to your projects. They have numerous presets
and rules built-in, and you can create your own custom presets, rules,
and plugins. If you want to ban null, write a custom rule for it. If
you want to ban anything not ES5, write a rule that catches every
expression that isn't ES5. If you want to define local rules, use
eslint-plugin-local. In my case, I decided I didn't want to use
default exports, so I wrote a local rule banning all default exports.
Not that I have a problem with those who use it - I don't. I just feel
it's easier for me to wrap my head around named exports without
introducing the cognitive overhead of default exports.
Isiah Meadows me at isiahmeadows.com
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? Send me an email and we can get started. www.isiahmeadows.com
I used the term 'language contributors' rather than TC39 as an intentionally vague way of describing people like us.
The ISO C++ Committee also lacks a consensus on everything, but that doesn't mean those people and the people around them can't debate and establish a consensus on something. Hence, C++ Core Guidelines.
I think the reality is that people are averse to this because they don't
want their pet practices at work being discouraged by anything resembling
official guidance — having to justify a decision to use var instead of
const by default is effort, right? But they're perhaps not always
considering the benefits that an improvement in (not necessarily total)
uniformity can bring.
I claim that the majority in the Python community would say that PEP-8 has been a net benefit. (Yes I break its rules from time to time. That's what rules are for. ;) )
Though, PEP-8 was created in 2001 and in significant part codified already used conventions. And JavaScript does not have such widely followed conventions - except camelCase for functions and PascalCase for classes.
there are several factors for the current javascript-fatigue. one factor which tc39 could help mitigate is to provide a narrative on how to consistently apply proposed language-features (over existing-practices and interfacing with legacy-code).
i feel too many new and old javascript-programmers alike are unable to adopt a consistent programming-style for post-es5 features in production-code. style-issues which are problematic when a project has to deal with legacy libraries include:
es6/es7/es8 introduces hundreds of these kinds of questions which distract us from actual coding and shipping features.