Hum...I supposed the term is more relevant to verbose languages. For example, the term is useless in Ruby where almost anything can be written in three different ways.
Taking your example of React, JSX is not a feature of JS. It's a feature of the development environment most React users work in. (You can write pure React code without transpiling but you won't have any JSX). So, in that case, it still makes sense.
defer( comment.conclusion )
True, I only have 1 language to evaluate how that term is used and this could be helpful in a compare/contrast sense.
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.