Hacker News Reader

Comment by pornel | Hacker News Reader

ES6 is especially nice with D3.js:

    .attr('transform', function(d) { return "translate(" + (d.x + 1) + " 0)"; })

becomes:

    .attr('transform', d => `translate(${d.x + 1} 0)`)

And:

    .attr({x:x, y:y, width:width, height:height})
    
    .attr({x, y, width, height})

View on HN

I've been writing TypeScript exclusively for so long, I forget most devs are still using the old syntax.

Same here, except with CoffeeScript.

Me too! I love Coffeescript, so glad we can finally build things with ecmascript 6!

But coffeescript doesn't even look like JavaScript. How could you confuse them?

In the specific D3 examples above, the advantages of ES6 have long been available in CoffeeScript.

Several ES6 features very much resemble the few ways coffeescript syntax differs from older versions of ecmascript. Arrow functions, destructured assignment, string templates.

In context, we were commenting on this:

    .attr('transform', d => `translate(${d.x + 1} 0)`)

which looks pretty similar to the coffeescript counterpart:

    .attr 'transform', (d) -> "translate(#{d.x + 1} 0)"

Five subtle differences, but it shows how the things that are new/different about ES6 are more similar to typescript and coffeescript than ES5.

Agree. It makes writing functional code (and functional-style code) much better looking.

Careful though: Libraries like jQuery and D3 can and/or do rebind `this` and that can be a gotcha in both TypeScript and straight ES6. You can end up having to mix both declaration styles, which is gross.

Readable lambdas are always a plus for me, glad to see this change.

Oh wow, that is so much more understandable for me! Nice :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com