here is a writeup I did on how break/continue could work, but don’t think I present it to TS39 because ... http://wirfs-brock.com/allen/files/jshistory/continue-break-lambda.pdf …
-
-
Is it possible to describe in reasonably lay terms why this is harder for JS than Ruby? Both are dynamically typed, right?
-
You won't find a good answer other than Blub.
-
The arguments the experienced folks (in good faith, and honestly) used to kill block lambdas in JS apply to Ruby too.
-
I don't mean that
@BrendanEich or@awbjs were blubbing. I mean others were and persuaded them to live with these arguments to kill it. -
And honestly, this is how consensus works. I wasn't around yet, and vastly prefer arrows and no-block-lambdas to deadlock.
-
The arguments against block lambdas weren't persuasive to me, but between committee members blubbing and good enough arguments, yolo.
-
Just to be clear, I (a Smalltalk expert) convinced myself that block lambda with break/continue would be a bad for JS
-
Smalltalk's block-based control flow might have been seen as a diff, but ruby has traditional if/while/etc. Blocks bad for ruby?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Here's what I was told back in 2012 by a committee member before I was on the committee. Very poor argument, but a winning one.pic.twitter.com/BFWGuoWbpE
-
That was not canonical death blow to control effects equivalence - see older https://www.mail-archive.com/es-discuss@mozilla.org/msg01533.html … from
@othermaciej. -
I think you agree that this perspective was a key one in ultimately defeating the proposal. Others came to terms, this was there to the end.
-
Block lambdas died in part because a committee member thought let scope was (forever) too unpopular to use as a pun.

-
Same committee member claimed we could standardize both.

-
No, Alex’s objection was not what killed block lambdas. He isn’t in charge anyway!
-
"in part"
-
Alex was never going to agree. Arrows were a good enough compromise. Of that there is no doubt.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t have to do better cuz JS lacks that runtime test-coverage dependent hazard vs Ruby. Don’t assume Ruby is self-evident gold standard.
-
Ruby is used by noobs who are broadly not confused. That's all I'm using ruby as evidence for.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.