3 ms·

So two things. First, it doesn't matter how fast browsers moved. Currently they're moving pretty damn quick if you ask me but it doesn't matter because you nee

So two things. First, it doesn't matter how fast browsers moved. Currently they're moving pretty damn quick if you ask me but it doesn't matter because you need to know your audience and what browser(s) they use. Second, I don't understand the want or need to include "hundreds of MBs dependencies to transform a arrow function". Why do you have to use an arrow function? Yeah it looks nicer but if you're complaining about how much dependency it brings in why not just not use it? Don't get me wrong I like ECMAScript 2015 but if you don't want to bring in the huge amount of transpiler dependencies ECMASCript 5 is still super easy to write.

algesten 10y ago
Exactly my point. Arrow functions and destructuring assignments are great, but we've put up with function() { ... } for the last 20 years, so I'm pretty certain we can wait a couple of more years and not get bogged down in these crazy tooling chains to achieve so little. and if we insist on crazy tooling chains, how about getting some real benefit – like coffeescript (?-operator anyone) or typescript (yes, typing can help, just look at swift)?