Comment by DonHopkins
5 years ago
Thank you for that definitive link. Note that first boldfaced sentence in that JSX specification is as follows: "It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself."
That should have been the end of this discussion and fight that you picked about your incorrect statement that "JSX is JavaScript". You just unwittingly undermined and terminated your own argument by linking to the JSX spec itself, which clearly and explicitly says you are wrong, in BIG BOLD WORDS.
As JimDabel said, "They wanted to be 100% clear about it." So stop repeating something that the JSX designers so insistent is not true that they put it in bold at the top of their design specification.
You already won this argument, for the "JSX is NOT JavaScript" side. It's over.
You're arguing the wrong thing. You're arguing a semantics debate about whether an extension is JS. I'm arguing that it allows you to use JS features instead of a custom template system.
In the semantics debate you want to have I think it is JS because it all becomes JS bytecode and it's just nested function calls in the end, but that's subjective. If you want to be pedantic it's a JS extension, but in the future it could be JS if the spec is merged into engines not the compilers.
JS is an umbrella term, you're arguing it's not Ecmascript, okay, I never said that. I said it's JS, and you want to have a tussle about it instead of comparing templating systems.
Also you're very rude.