We're splitting hairs now. It's an extension of the JS spec. Once a parser adds this grammar it is JS.

It's syntactical sugar, unlike template syntax #if, ng-if, etc.

Your argument is it's not part of the current Ecmascript spec, I never said it was, but if a parser or engine adds these two new PrimaryExpressions and attributes, it is JS.

The entire point is JSX extends JS to allow templating via nested JS functions w/ pretty brackets instead of creating an entire templating system.

Under your reasoning nothing that isn't in the current accepted Ecmascript spec implemented by browsers is JS. Does that mean decorators aren't JS? Were async functions not JS before they were in browsers?

We’re not splitting hairs. It is, quite literally, not JavaScript in a fundamental way.

If you want to go around telling people it’s a non-standard extension to JavaScript or if you want to go around telling people it’s a superset of JavaScript, then by all means do that. But it is simply not JavaScript. Why do you insist on saying otherwise? All that does is start completely pointless arguments. What do you gain from insisting it is JavaScript when it isn’t?

I think you're getting a little too worked up.

The point is this small extension to JS grammar lets you do templating with normal JS, instead of #for you can use .forEach, .map and other array methods.

You can use JS instead of replacing tokens in a template.

It's not a superset of JS, that's not accurate, it's an extension of the spec.

I hope the JSX spec is added to the standard sometime to stop this stupid debate.

Until you realize what JSX is you don't realize the full potential it has over templates.

> The point is this small extension to JS grammar lets you…

If that’s the point, why are you telling people it’s JavaScript? You can make that point just fine without starting arguments.

Saying “This is an extension to JavaScript” is fine. Saying “This is JavaScript” starts arguments. What is your goal here?

> I hope the JSX spec is added to the standard sometime to stop this stupid debate.

But you are starting this stupid debate by telling people it’s JavaScript when it isn’t. If you are tired of people pointing this out when you call it JavaScript, why do you do it? There seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from that except “a stupid debate”.

> Until you realize what JSX is

I know what JSX is. I’ve written plenty of JSX.

> you don't realize the full potential it has over templates.

We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

> If that’s the point, why are you telling people it’s JavaScript? You can make that point just fine without starting arguments.

First, I say it's JS because it is. Just as decorators are JS. By being an extension of JS it is JS. The two are mutually inclusive.

Second, I didn't want to start an argument, I wanted to call out the very wrong blog post, how it referenced React not JSX, how the spec is an extension of JS, explain the limitations, etc. Until now it was more of a debate. Now it's a bit more of a semantics debate unfortunately.

> But you are starting this stupid debate by telling people it’s JavaScript when it isn’t. If you are tired of people pointing this out when you call it JavaScript, why do you do it? There seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from that except “a stupid debate”.

Actually if you go up the comment chain you'll see I didn't start this debate. If you're tired, just don't participate.

> We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

Oh but we are, again if you go up the comment chain, it's being compared to Svelte's template system, that's how it got brought up, and that's usually why this topic gets brought up. You don't have to create a whole template system. You just use nested functions. To use pretty brackets it needs a small extension of the spec. You don't have to come up with a loop system, a conditional system, etc.

> By being an extension of JS it is JS. The two are mutually inclusive.

This is absurd. If JSX were JavaScript, JavaScript wouldn’t need to be extended to include JSX. The whole point of it being an extension is that JavaScript doesn’t include it, therefore JSX extends it. If JSX were JavaScript, then JavaScript wouldn’t need to be extended. The two are mutually exclusive.

> > We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

> Oh but we are, again if you go up the comment chain

In the context of “Is JSX JavaScript?”, the value of JSX is irrelevant. Whether JSX is useless, useful, or amazing makes zero difference to the question of whether JSX is JavaScript or not.

You can still go around telling people JSX is great. It doesn’t have to be JavaScript for you to do that. People telling you that it isn’t JavaScript aren’t telling you that it’s worthless. They are just telling you that it isn’t JavaScript.

Are decorators JS? Answer that question and I'll respond to the rest of your comment.

We're talking in circles a bit so I'd like to drill that down first.

Decorators are a stage two proposal. This means that they are not yet JavaScript, but are expected to be soon.

The point of all of this is it's a JS feature, not a system written on top of JS. A few syntax changes unlocks the rest of JS instead of having to reinvent the wheel, making your own loop and conditional systems. I don't see why the semantics of it not being included yet doesn't make it JS.

When the feature isn't in all browsers and only Babel doesn't make it not JS, similar to how async functions were JS before being natively in JS engines.

You're not being genuine when you say decorators aren't JS. No one looks at Angular 2 and says "whoa that's using some foreign language mixed with JS", they say it's using a JS experimental feature.

I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature", I'll use that in the future to avoid this pedantic debate.

> I don't see why the semantics of it not being included yet doesn't make it JS.

You don’t see why something not being included in JavaScript doesn’t make it JavaScript? Really?

> I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature"

JSX is not an experimental JS feature. You’re trying to draw an equivalence between decorators and JSX, but they aren’t equivalent at all.

Decorators were submitted for inclusion into JavaScript. They have undergone a lot of review to determine whether they belong in JavaScript, and people agreed they did. The specification has been refined to make them suitable for inclusion into JavaScript. Everybody plans on decorators becoming part of JavaScript. Browsers will implement decorators.

JSX, on the other hand, is explicitly not proposed for inclusion into JavaScript. The second and third sentences of the JSX specification read:

> It's NOT intended to be implemented by engines or browsers. It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself.

The second sentence is even bolded in the specification. They wanted to be 100% clear about it.

The standards committee isn’t reviewing JSX for suitability for inclusion into JavaScript. Nobody is planning on JSX becoming part of JavaScript. No browsers are planning on implementing JSX.

These are two entirely different situations. Decorators being on the cusp of becoming JavaScript does not mean that JSX is JavaScript.

So far he's ignored instead of addressing all the valid points you've made, and now he's trying to derail the conversation by bringing up experimental features, which, as you say, have nothing to do with anything else.

Since he's working from his own definition of the word "is", and his own definition of the JavaScript standard, there's no way he's going to admit what he said is wrong, even though it is, and the JSX designers were 100% clear in their documentation about shooting down his mistaken idea that JSX is JavaScript.

Now that you've made that point, he's probably just going to try to derail and change the subject again, like he was just trying to do by diverting the discussion to decorators.

Please see the reply I posted to @JimDabell, I didn't answer you due to your rudeness, but my reply applies to your points as well, your wall of text was the same as his two sentences.

edit: I'll expand for you...

I'm sorry you wanted to get sucked into "is an experimental feature JS feature JS or not". That was not my intent. The entire intent was you can use JS by using the JSX extension. Instead of #for you use JS iterator functions. You can use non experimental JS features in JSX instead of conditionals or loop systems you roll yourself. Your only argument is "oh it's not included yet" okay, no shit.

Anytime someone says JSX is JS they don't mean it's currently in the standard spec, no one is arguing that, they're arguing you can use JS language features instead of a custom template system.

Anytime someone says JSX is JS, what they said means what those words mean, and what those words mean is wrong. JSX is not JS.

If you want to say something that is different than "JSX is JS" then use different words than "JSX is JS". Nobody is misunderstanding you. You're simply wrong, and insisting on saying something that's not true.

It's possible in the English Language to put together a different sentence using different words that is not incorrect, so do that, instead of saying "JSX is JS", if you want the words you say to not be wrong.

But you don't get to unilaterally redefine the meaning of the word "is", or the JavaScript language definition, and then act rude and angry and frustrated when people disagree with you and get tired of your infinite looping and mindless repetition of things that simply aren't true.

So try this: next time you feel the urge to repeat the false statement "JSX is JS", and find yourself looping infinitely picking arguments with knowledgeable people who disagree with you, instead say something completely different, that actually means what you're trying to say and is true, like "You can use JS language features instead of a custom template system", which means something totally different than "JSX is JS".

Then you won't be saying something that is wrong, and you won't feel so sad that people are misunderstanding you, and you won't get sucked into an infinite loop and keep going around in circles, because you're not simply saying what you mean, and instead inexplicably saying something that's not true instead.

> The point is this small extension to JS grammar lets you do templating with normal JS, instead of #for you can use .forEach, .map and other array methods.

But then React is much more than just "small extension".

Hooks alone are less of a Javascript than any Svelte template syntax.

We're not talking about React we're talking about JSX.

Svelte has a lot more going on than it's template language as well.

We're only comparing the templating system to JSX.

Let's compare to JSX then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29194287

That's still React. JSX is only turning brackets, tag names, and attributes into function calls and object properties.

Special attributes, events, etc. are React specific and not related to JSX.

Basically it's a clean way to represent nested function calls, that's it. It has nothing to do with React nor does it need React.

<tag prop="value"/> gets turned into React.createElement('tag', {prop: "value"})

That's all. Period. The special props React introduces has nothing to do with JSX.

Also you can customize JSX to change the functions it generates. (i.e. swapping out React.createElement)

Those are all features of React or the React JSX transform, not JSX. Other JSX transforms or frameworks using them may or may not share any or all of them. (JSX is not only used in React.)

Ah. So we're comparing a specific templating language (Svelte) with an idealized and nonexistent version of JSX (JSX is a non-standard extension that has different flavors depending on what underlying framework, and versions of a framework, you use).