As I said, to me idiomatic code is code that follows the design principles of the language and the common patterns and constructs native to the language that the community has identified as most useful to write succinct and expressive code. You seem to define idiomatic code as just good code. The way I see it, idiomatic code should result in good code most of the time, but it doesn't always, and good code isn't necessarily idiomatic.
Thus, when I read a title saying idiomatic Javascript, I understand that you are saying this code is a good example of how Javascript should generally be written because it uses the patterns native to the language that have been tested and deemed most useful to write expressive code across many applications.
From this point of view, claiming that anything is idiomatic Javascript is a rather bold statement, because Javascript is a chimera that has evolved in the recent years to please everyone without a unified vision of how the language should look like or be used, and there is no central authority that either of us can quote to support what we consider idiomatic, like we would have in Python, for instance.
At this point, I think discussing any further is pointless because it's clear that we don't think about idiomatic code in the same way and you've stated that you're not interested in such philosophical discussions. However, if you must know, here's why I'm surprised that you define your code as idiomatic:
It makes heavy usage of decorators. Apparently, most of your framework is based on adding behaviour to classes through decorators. Decorators are not part of the Javascript standard yet, and I don't think you can claim any code that heavily uses a construct that is not in the language, and needs to be transpiled to even be valid runtime code, to be idiomatic. It can be good code, it can be a nice approach, but it is definitely not idiomatic.
As a result of your heavy usage of decorators, almost everything that interacts with your framework is a class, because decorators can't be used outside classes. No object literals, no encapsulation via closures and partial application, no functional mixins... Javascript offers much more than classes and your code doesn't take advantage of it because it's heavily based on a feature that's not even in the language yet.
To reiterate, I'm not saying that your code is not good, I'm not saying that you should write it in a different way, and you have written your own web framework, which I haven't, so kudos for that. But I have trouble seeing it as idiomatic Javascript.
The whole point of the article:
I think my code here, on this tutorial is easy/simple to grasp, follow, understand, etc
As I said, to me idiomatic code is code that follows the design principles of the language and the common patterns and constructs native to the language that the community has identified as most useful to write succinct and expressive code. You seem to define idiomatic code as just good code. The way I see it, idiomatic code should result in good code most of the time, but it doesn't always, and good code isn't necessarily idiomatic.
Thus, when I read a title saying idiomatic Javascript, I understand that you are saying this code is a good example of how Javascript should generally be written because it uses the patterns native to the language that have been tested and deemed most useful to write expressive code across many applications.
From this point of view, claiming that anything is idiomatic Javascript is a rather bold statement, because Javascript is a chimera that has evolved in the recent years to please everyone without a unified vision of how the language should look like or be used, and there is no central authority that either of us can quote to support what we consider idiomatic, like we would have in Python, for instance.
At this point, I think discussing any further is pointless because it's clear that we don't think about idiomatic code in the same way and you've stated that you're not interested in such philosophical discussions. However, if you must know, here's why I'm surprised that you define your code as idiomatic:
It makes heavy usage of decorators. Apparently, most of your framework is based on adding behaviour to classes through decorators. Decorators are not part of the Javascript standard yet, and I don't think you can claim any code that heavily uses a construct that is not in the language, and needs to be transpiled to even be valid runtime code, to be idiomatic. It can be good code, it can be a nice approach, but it is definitely not idiomatic.
As a result of your heavy usage of decorators, almost everything that interacts with your framework is a class, because decorators can't be used outside classes. No object literals, no encapsulation via closures and partial application, no functional mixins... Javascript offers much more than classes and your code doesn't take advantage of it because it's heavily based on a feature that's not even in the language yet.
To reiterate, I'm not saying that your code is not good, I'm not saying that you should write it in a different way, and you have written your own web framework, which I haven't, so kudos for that. But I have trouble seeing it as idiomatic Javascript.
Thanks for the info tho!
btw, the previous version of the same library was written without any ES6 classes or decorators: github.com/k1r0s/ritley-alpha
to me, it seems more to angularjs, what do you think?