I think the definition of "Language" should exclude anything for which that is possible.
-
-
@BrendanEich@AdamRackis@ryanflorence@Rich_Harris Mysticism is furthered by considering it anything other than superficial syntax. -
Nah, the mysticism is precisely treating it as simple sugar, when in practice much of the work of React is squinting at it differently.
-
Maybe there's some plans or goals I'm not privy to.
Why am I always the last to be invited into the conspiracy?pic.twitter.com/jZu4JLLZpQ
-
This will forever be how I think about, and encourage use of JSX. Anything else including framework compilers is wildly unappealing to me.
-
I'm struggling to see yehuda's point myself. What mysticism?
-
I like JSX, truly (I implemented E4X back in the day & tamed crazy parts of its spec). Mysticism for me comes from immutability appearances+
-
which can deceive. Then
@sebmarkbage trolls me for not making JS be Haskell (premodern version) in 1995! So yes, JSX is just syntax: for JS! -
But the story of react is heavily focused on immutability, so the look is really deceiving.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
To be clear, I think things like https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/3226 … are awesome! But they're key to understanding what JSX really is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Use the source, Luke!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mysticism? What do you mean?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.