mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2025-02-25 15:50:05 +00:00
Compare commits
2 commits
e8ab433b22
...
296ef06020
Author | SHA1 | Date | |
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
296ef06020 | ||
![]() |
a3dd303b48 |
1 changed files with 14 additions and 0 deletions
14
content/notes/yuescript-first-impressions.md
Normal file
14
content/notes/yuescript-first-impressions.md
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "Yuescript first impressions"
|
||||
date: 2023-02-15T09:35:15-08:00
|
||||
syndicatedCopies:
|
||||
- title: 'The Fediverse'
|
||||
url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/notice/ASi7iC9E0WfUIObg5A'
|
||||
---
|
||||
I just discovered [Yuescript](https://yuescript.org/doc/), which is like MoonScript with more features. I have mixed feelings.
|
||||
|
||||
I like features like pipelines (much cleaner than repeated assignment or nested parentheses in function calls) and compile-time macros. The sugar for multiple and destructuring assignment is handy.
|
||||
|
||||
I find the additional operators unnecessary, and not worth their cognitive overhead. The `?` operator was already used as sugar for a parameter-free function call. The `[]` operator could easily have been a function in a library instead.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the trade-offs for this much syntactic sugar is some syntactic ambiguity. An opinionated formatter could resolve some of this.
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue