I don't understand what this could possibly mean.
-
-
Replying to @wycats @ryanflorence and
Means I don't see new concrete syntax that has with 1-1 mapping to old syntax as "language".
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jordwalke @ryanflorence and
Does that mean that arrow functions aren't a language feature?
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @wycats @jordwalke and
The missing context is, "what constitutes a DSL?"
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @jordwalke and
I think it's pretty clear that JSX is a "language feature" just like ES6 classes, arrows and destructuring are language features
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @wycats @AdamRackis and
it's also false (and somewhat insulting) to claim that JSX has always compiled to the same JS. There's some platonic JS, and then reality.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @jordwalke and
"Compiled to the same js" - sorry - can you clarify?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamRackis @jordwalke and
Sorry, I replied to a different thread with https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/3226 …. React has felt free to change the semantics of the output JS.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @wycats @AdamRackis and
Stuff like this https://github.com/jridgewell/babel-plugin-transform-incremental-dom …, which the JSX community seems to think is fine, is also another JS output.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @AdamRackis and
I totally get why people like JSX, but the mysticism around it is pretty silly and makes cross-pollination and understanding more difficult.
4 replies 5 retweets 17 likes
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.
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.