3 ms·
The Future of JavaScript: What Awaits Us
- garyclarke27 1y agoLooks good but what about Named Parameters? Why on earth is Javascript still missing such an important feature? I know you can kind of fake it with objects, but is clunky in comparison.
- pjmlp 1y agoExactly because of that, it would only cut the curly brackets. Also it is the same approach done in C and C++, another two languages where being clunky is a something we got used to.
- Klonoar 1y agoRust has the same issue. In practice it’s just not a big deal, I think about it maybe once every six months or so.
- dtagames 1y agoThat's actually a benefit. It allows the type signature to be used to compose and verify what you're passing to a function, and to use that same interface in other places.
- Alifatisk 1y agoI kind off don't see the point with Random.Seeded being part of Ecmascript? It's useful for sure, but isn't that something one could implement for themselves if needed? Is it really that sought after feature from the whole community?
- rafram 1y agoWhy make people implement their own PRNG (in userspace code that’ll be slower than the built-in routine) for such a basic use case? I don’t know of any other major language in the world that doesn’t support setting the seed.
- spankalee 1y agoIt's needed for Houdini and possibly CSS, which would benefit from being able to copy the JS spec.
- apatheticonion 1y agoI just want wasm so I can write web applications in Rust
- rafram 1y agoEvery major browser supports WASM and has for years.
- apatheticonion 1y agoMissing threads and bindings for the system/DOM interfaces
- idontwantthis 1y agoCan anyone explain why they chose the [Symbol.dispose] syntax instead of regular .dispose syntax? I suppose to not break existing code that implements a dispose method, but it is a lot less friendly than regular method syntax.
- rafram 1y ago> I suppose to not break existing code that implements a dispose method Exactly. This is standard for new "magic" object members - see [Symbol.species], [Symbol.iterator], and so on. Your existing dispose() method might take arguments, or it might return a promise, or maybe you have a field called dispose that isn't a dispose() method at all. This approach is slightly less pretty, but it preserves backwards-compatibility and avoids conflicts with the many weird, decades-old JS libraries still floating around on the web. (Also see Array#flat(), which had to be called that because some ancient libraries modified the Array prototype to add a #flatten() method... It's a mess out there.)
- idontwantthis 1y agoPour one out for the Array#smoosh() that could have been.
- throwitaway1123 1y agoFor anyone looking for context on smooshgate: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate
- animanoir 1y ago[dead]