Dot operators vs plain functions are just two different ways to call a function, binding the lexical context `this` to a different value, possibly `undefined` in a strict context (which is default in es6 modules). The two are not uncompatible and libraries like jQuery make a wonderful use of the first version (dot call). The fact is that everything is mutable in JavaScript and one of its main API (the DOM) is actually built around this concept.

I really fail to see how those kind of changes bring anything of value to the language, apart from creating complexity where there is much already: some codebases will try and use this before it's ironed out with different / changing / competing transpiler implementation while it is only stage 2. What happened with decorators (see babel-legacy-decorators) should be a warning against enthusiasm for these kind of things and remind me of the pitfalls of macros in the Lisp world...

I am not saying that you should stick with an idiom till the end of time but changes should try and lower that complexity while (in the case of EcmaScript) being backward compatible so as to not break existing stuff.

Btw I love RxJS and its variants, Ben Lesh's talks (as well as those by Matthew Podwysocki, Andre Staltz etc...) from around 2015 and then on were one of the reasons I got into JS as a professional.

The pipe operator/function is useful and appropriate when all you are doing is stringing along some data through a series of transformations and where introducing a named variable would be more confusing and take away from the context of what is actually important.

Methods are nice but suffer from the fact that adding a custom method to a new object is more involved and dangerous than just creating a new function. However, "f(g(h(x)))" is not very readable (at least for English speakers) since while we read left to right, the invocation order is right to left. "x | h | g | f" is arguably more readable since the evaluation order follows reading order (plus you don't have to deal with so many parenthesis).

I want to reemphasize though that introducing a variable is often better practice and that the pipe operator only makes sense when there is no suitable variable name.

> However, "f(g(h(x)))" is not very readable (at least for English speakers) since while we read left to right, the invocation order is right to left. "x | h | g | f" is arguably more readable since the evaluation order follows reading order (plus you don't have to deal with so many parenthesis).

There's also a "hierarchy" thing at play. With "f(g(h(x)))", x is "inside" h which is "inside" g which is "inside" f. With "x | h | g | f" all are on the same level. For me at least, it's easier to imagine your data "flow" through functions when they are on the same level. It sound a bit weird when I put it that way, but I don't think I'm alone in feeling that. Fluent interfaces are considered easy to read, and help flatten the code. Same thing with promise chaining compared to the callback > of doom.

Chained function calls only work if the types in question have immutable functions that support chaining. This is the case for arrays with `map`, `filter` and for promises with then/catch.

But it's not the case for the majority of libraries, including many of the builtin types.

A pipeline operator is generic and can be used everywhere, without requiring the API to be built around chaining. This can often lead to much nicer, more readable code.

I think this is something you only start to really appreciate once you've used it a bit, like in Elixir or F#.

Obviously this is much more natural in a functional language, where everything is immutable anyway.

I merely explain where the pipeline operator came from and why it's preferred in F#: because it plays nicely with immutable data and the Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm. I make absolutely no comment about the sanity of adding anything to JS (or, indeed, of using JS at all).

> Dot-operators encourage you to think about repeatedly asking some smart blob of state to mutate itself.

Smart Blobs don't have to mutate themselves anymore than procedures have to have side effects.

Of course they don't have to. As I said, they encourage you to think in the object-orientation "encapsulate state and teach it how to mutate itself on demand" way, but you don't have to use them that way.

I'm being somewhat obtuse here, but I've never understood that.

Why would I be more likely to mutate state in sending a message to an object than I would be applying a procedure to a struct? (or a function to a record, depending on your terminology)

Immutable objects are a very old and mainstream idea, I believe they're even talked about in Effective C++.

Long history and baggage of object orientation, I suppose. There's nothing inherently mutable about dot-notation (indeed, F# uses it for accessors on immutable records as well as for "proper" object-orientation), but lots of object-oriented languages use the dot for accessing objects, and lots of object-oriented idioms involve mutation. If you're going to send a message to an object, you do kind of expect something to happen, and that's often a mutation somewhere.

Having said that, I actually don't know the history of the dot operator in any depth (https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/89031/what-is-the-ori... suggests it arose in Simula).

> Why would I be more likely to mutate state in sending a message to an object than I would be applying a procedure to a struct?

I think most people don't think about objects in terms of sending a message to them, but in terms of calling a method on them. OOP in JS, currently, revolves a lot around mutable objects. JS itself revolves a lot around mutability. Some people are trying to change that, at least by getting proper support for the alternative. The pipeline operator is part of that.

If you don't have state what do you need an object for? Would it make more sense to have a "free" function instead?