Good write-up! I'm especially looking forward to nullish coalescing, as it would've solved an annoying but I just had.
I heard about optional chaining from Kyle Simpson, and it looks useful! I'll likewise enjoy trying that out.
I'm personally not thrilled about private or static stuff, but much like classes, I know they'll help passerby JS developers who already use JS as an OO language. As the language of the web, it's probably better if developers of all types encounter as little friction as possible working with JS.... but I'm still scrunching up my nose at it.
I think now that JS has classes, the private and static keywords/symbols are only a natural next step.
Still, I have to agree with some others about the # symbol for private. That's bizarre to me.
On the other hand though, I guess you'll get some kind of indication from outside the class that what you're trying to use is private. Hopefully it's helpful in that regard.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Good write-up! I'm especially looking forward to nullish coalescing, as it would've solved an annoying but I just had.
I heard about optional chaining from Kyle Simpson, and it looks useful! I'll likewise enjoy trying that out.
I'm personally not thrilled about private or static stuff, but much like classes, I know they'll help passerby JS developers who already use JS as an OO language. As the language of the web, it's probably better if developers of all types encounter as little friction as possible working with JS.... but I'm still scrunching up my nose at it.
I think now that JS has classes, the private and static keywords/symbols are only a natural next step.
Still, I have to agree with some others about the
#symbol for private. That's bizarre to me.On the other hand though, I guess you'll get some kind of indication from outside the class that what you're trying to use is private. Hopefully it's helpful in that regard.