3 ms·
I don't use javascript regularly so I have no notice of "samey". But I've been exposed to enough of a variety of programming languages from APL to C to Rust to
by fnord77 7y ago
I don't use javascript regularly so I have no notice of "samey". But I've been exposed to enough of a variety of programming languages from APL to C to Rust to Scala that I have a pretty good idea when some construct looks awkward or unergonomic. ES6 looks like a nightmare. Even compared to the nightmare that is Scala. And remember, Javascript's roots are scheme.
Here's the same thing in clojurescript. Tighter, balanced and no chaining of symbols.
(defn Cell [value i j]
(m 'button.cell' {:onclick #(move value, i, j)}))
- TheRealPomax 7y agoI've never used clojurescript (but have used perl, php, java, prolog, oocaml, js, python, ...), so to me that: looks like a clusterfuck. But of course, if I had a need where clojurescript was the best fit, and I had to use it daily for an appreciable amount of time, I'd acclimatize to it and consider this perfectly fine syntax. The same goes for ES6: it's objectively just syntax. If you think it's a nightmare, that's because you're the one doing the judging. Not because it is.