Comment by JimDabell
5 years ago
> 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.
4 replies →
The reason you're going around in circles is because you keep insisting on repeating something that's not true.
Again, at the risk of repeating the truth: "Repeating it over and over again does not make it true."
There's no need to "drill down" or infinitely recurse on yourself: simply execute a "break;" and stop repeating things that aren't true, and your infinite "while" loop will terminate, and your function will finally "return;".
Has JavaScript's fuzzy concept of "truthyness" has affected your brain, and you're just as confused about the basic concept of "equality" as Brendan Eich is about gay marriage and human rights?
https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/
Figuring out whether (JavaScript == JSX) || (JavaScript != JSX) isn't as tricky as deciding why (NaN == NaN) || (NaN != NaN). And using three equal signs instead of two isn't going to change the result.
(I'm sorry this has to be repeated over and over again, but it IS objectively true that you're repeating things that aren't true over and over again, and that's not making them any more true.)
So please repeat after me: JSX is not JavaScript. That's the truth, it's always going to be true no matter how many times you repeat the opposite, and it shouldn't have to be repeated.
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.
1 reply →