So, how do you guys feel about "classes" in ECMA 6?

>>52252787
They are just syntactic sugar, so nothing really changes.

>>52252826
This

Cleaner code is always welcome.

>>52252787
>Are you going to use them?
What do you mean? I'm never going to use ES6 because IE will never die, so no.

>>52252787
>going to use
Babel.

>>52253272
>IE will never die, so no.
Again, Babel.

When using source maps, working with emerging JS features is a lot of fun. It's actually starting to feel like a real programming language at this point. Cleaner code (thanks to bits and pieces of syntactic sugar and modules), weapons against callback hell (promises), and all the rest are great for productivity. And thanks to transpilers, we don't have to worry about compatibility with all browsers of relevant adoption.

>>52252787
I like them. Used them recently in a project (with Babel to convert).
it's just cleaner, better syntax for features that already existed

>>52252925
>>52253501
What about arrow functions?

>>52253524
Arrow functions are fucking awesome. Finally a solution for the

var that = this;

workaround.

>>52253550
What??

That actually makes a difference?

>>52253716
Arrow functions use the context in which they are defined, other than regular functions that have their own this, depending on which object they are bound to on invocation. It's not just syntactic sugar.

>>52253803
I... guess that makes sense.

>>52253836
It's really important to be aware of how scopes work if writing code that goes into production. I stopped being clueless after nearly causing significant financial damage. Fortunately, the problem was detected and fixed early enough after deployment.

>>52253902
I do support for a living atm, so I won't break anything crucial... Most of my JS goes into managing in-house digital signage (a single self-updating webpage)

Still no let block declaration

var a = 10;
let (b = a * 3) {
    for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
        console.log(i);
    }
}

instead of

var a = 10;
{
    let b = a * 3;
    for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
        console.log(i);
    }
}

>>52254248
I don't understand how this makes a difference. It may save you one line, but it could lead to dirty code for more than one assignment, such as:

var a = 10;
let (b = a * 3; c = b * 5) {
    for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
        console.log(i);
    }
}

No. I've been writing Javascript the same way for over a decade and some retarded internet hipsters decided to come fuck its shit up with all this CoffeeScript bullshit. They can take their ES6 standards and shove them right up their ass.

>>52254800
For let blocks, you're showing a block of code that only belongs to the let declaration, instead of having to create your own block which makes code more difficult to read and ugly.

var a = 10;
let (b, c) {
    b = a * 3;
    c = b * 5;
    for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
        console.log(i);
    }
}

Instead of the latter:

var a = 10;
{
    let b = a * 3
        for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
           console.log(i);
        }
    }
}

>>52254997
Whoops, I mean this:

var a = 10;
{
    let b = a * 3;
    let c = b * 5;
    for (let i = 0; i < b; i++) {
        console.log(i);
    }
}

>>52254997
The part that annoys me is the idea of being able to initialize a block variable on block declaration. If this is allowed, some idiot is going to come along with a 200 character let block declaration that initializes 20 variables in complex ways. Readability goes out of the window.

Don't get me wrong - what you're proposing is great, assuming only sane human beings use JS. From experience, however, every monkey with a typewriter is allowed to use it nowadays, so I would be cautious about adding syntax that could be easily be abused by a moron.