News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel. Parent comment

Re:F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel by gambler on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @12:21PM (#22238218)
It's worth reflecting on why the most popular language in the world has syntax so inflexible that a simple operator like this requires begging some ubercorp for a compiler change. Smalltalk had user-definable binary/infix operators in 1980. They didn't require you to muck around with the compiler at all.

Ironically, JavaScript has the extensibility mechanisms and object-oriented features inspired by Smalltalk that could allow for pretty much the same thing. However, most of the community doesn't seem to even realize that this is a possibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel by bjoli on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @02:52AM (#22244828)
Yeah! As a hobbyI much around with scheme (mostly), Smalltalk (a couple of times a year) and factor (maintaining some old tools I wrote in it).

The result is that if I whine, I whine about the choice of language, not about how a particular part of a language sucks. Extensibility like that should be built in, and then probably mostly discouraged. If you really need to scratch an itch, you will be able to do so without resorting to what usually ends up as ugly, non-composable hacks.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel by TomMarius on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @01:05PM (#22238798)
It's worth saying that mostly the same companies are building WebAssembly as a solution to this problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel by xkriva11 on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @03:22AM (#22244955)
Really? If you would try to do an effective Smalltalk implementation in WebAssembly, you would immediately see that WebAssembly is making things even much worse.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:F# Pipeline Operator in JavaScript with Babel by jkoudys on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @07:12PM (#22242630)
It's wasm. It could be written in Hindi numerals and unicorn emojis for all I care. So long as llvm can make sense of it.
[ Parent | on HN ]