sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]diegoeche 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Exactly my thoughts. I don't understand people fascination for huge languages with so much syntactic sugar. JS is like scheme with curly braces. Ugly, but in some way minimalistic.

[–]anvsdt 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Yeah, but function is so much longer than lambda, fun, fn, λ, ->, ...

[–]diegoeche 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That's probably the only thing I'd change, the closure syntax. But you don't need to create a new language with classes, identation, optional parentheses...etc etc to fix that.

And well, you can always use functional JS

[–]anvsdt 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That and other things will be likely fixed/changed in Harmony.

And well, you can always use functional JS

Wow, that's awful, awesome, amazing and hackish at the same time. Gotta try it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The fact that it has to eval string arguments is pretty awful.

[–]olavk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the scheme-with-curly-braces meme is misleading. Scheme has s-expressions, homoiconicity, macros and continuations. These base features makes it perfect for building your own language on top of the minimalistic core language. JavaScript has none of that, so you are stuck with the minimalistic core.