4 ms·
This looks excellent a nice restrained effort. Hasn't fallen into the trap that ActionScript3 did with too much ceremony, and its nice to see a syntactic super
by hermanhermitage 14y ago
This looks excellent a nice restrained effort. Hasn't fallen into the trap that ActionScript3 did with too much ceremony, and its nice to see a syntactic super-setting approach rather than Dart's.
Now what I'd like to see in Javascripts evolution (non backwards compatible):
* Subract: Removing parts of the language - let crockford free to rip out the bad parts.
* Enhance: Bring in some more taste of Scheme.
* Replace: New scoping for var etc, without introducing new keywords.
- jasondenizac 14y agonew scoping for `var`? Like the block-scoped `let`?
- hermanhermitage 14y agoYes. I'd prefer to change the semantics than introduce new keywords. Of course there are two schools of thought - I favour a small language over backwards compatibility. (And interim tools for migration). Where I do favour extensions is for expressiveness or performance reasons.
- gcr 14y agoWhat would more "taste of scheme" mean? Do you mean like lexically-shaped macros?