But wouldn't it be more accurate to call JSX a transpilation source?
Sugar, to me anyways, has always been a part of the language itself, but a more friendly way of writing something. The compiler usually rewrites it in its original statement. Like the :: in Java. The :: is not really a java feature, it just makes thing simpler.
reduce(Math::max); gets transformed by the compiler into reduce((int left, int right) -> Math.max(left, right));. The :: is not read by the JVM, but it is replaced by its Java equivalent by the compiler.
reduce((int left, int right) -> Math.max(left, right));
Being pedantic is good for exploring semantics hehe.
And I was being petty in complaining about 2 seconds in an "Intro to React" video in 2016. I agree that it's more intermediary. I came away with the impression that I had to learn an intermediate syntax that was not-JS,not-HTML in order to use React, and it would be transpiled back to ES5 anyway. Maybe it's not necessary anymore and React has changed a ton since--I don't use it but I'm going to get around to familiarizing myself after I cover more JS fundamentals.
Out of curiosity I just looked: thepracticaldev.s3.amazonaws.com/i...
It's all because of IE I guess. I've derailed. Thanks for entertaining my rant.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.