3 ms·
I understand the difference in difficulty, my point is any incremental time spent on this is wasted and could have contributed towards something else that's use
by zionic 7y ago
I understand the difference in difficulty, my point is any incremental time spent on this is wasted and could have contributed towards something else that's useful.
- wvenable 7y agoThat's not how software development works. If I've got a new team member, I'm not going to put him on async/await. I'm going to find him something simpler to work on. Or maybe I've been working on a feature for a few months and I need a break to clear my head so I'll work on a smaller feature for a while. Software development isn't just assembling widgets on an assembly line. It's a creative process. Developers aren't chained to their desks pumping out a non-descript streams of "code" that become different features. Likely incremental time spent on this had almost no real impact on more difficult and useful features.
- rhysmorgan 7y ago> I'm going to find him something simpler to work on. Sure, but why should this non-feature which makes code harder to read and reason about even be built in the first place? All to save `.parse` at the call site of a parser, for example?
- edflsafoiewq 7y agoThis syntax already exists in the language. If you want users to be able to use the obj() syntax you can already give them a closure for obj. Allowing it for user-defined types too removes an artificial syntactic distinction.