Unpopular opinion: we could just add, say, `pipe` and `pipeAsync` into the standard library, appart from aesthetic, I don't see the pipe operator to be very useful, at least the F# one doesn't because it's literally just another syntax for function invocation.

It is useful as an operator due to the fact that you avoid unnecessary function calls/lambda creation. "pipe(x, f, g, y => h(42, y))" is not going to be as easy to optimize as "h(42, g(f(x))" yet "x |> f |> g |> h(42, ^)" has the ordering of the pipe function while being equivalent to normal function invocation for the purposes of optimization.

I sort of agree though about the F# proposal version. It doesn't make sense to introduce if it is basically equivalent to having a pipe/pipeAsync function. I suspect this is a big reason why the Hack version was favored.

When you look at a Ramda-based JS code base, all there is to look at is function calls. Such code eschews most statements.

Piping is a common operation, though, and having dedicated syntax makes the code more readable. For those code bases that use curried, unary functions, the F# proposal is perfect (this is the original motivation behind the operator).

The hack-style pipe syntax that has been chosen is much worse in that regard, which is disappointing for the very folks that requested its addition.

Standard library? In javascript? You mean a keyword like `async` or `yield`, or a built-in object like Date or Math?