Alberto, CoffeeScript is a popular language that is widely considered to represent JavaScript's best bits, and it only has anonymous functions, so there's a large part of the JS community that disagrees with you there. Browsers actually do identify anonymous functions, based on the variable/property names that reference them, so the following function would be identified as `square` in tracebacks: let square = function(x) { return x * x }; In any case, passing anonymous functions to higher order functions is commonplace in real-world JS. Chris may be right about using decorators as a Pythonic alternative [I haven't really considered that properly to be honest], but you can't just tell people not to do something that they see as elegant and idiomatic. Best -- Carl Smith -- Carl Smith carl.input@gmail.com On 12 August 2017 at 17:22, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 August 2017 at 06:10, Chris Barker <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
Taking this off the list as it's no longer on topic.
not totally -- I'm going to add my thoughts:
1) If you want a smoother transition between server-side Python and in-browser code, maybe you're better off using one of the "python in the browser" solutions -- there are at least a few viable ones.
More experimentally, there's also toga's "web" backend (which allows you to take an application you developed with the primary intention of running it as a rich client application on mobile or desktop devices, and instead publishing it as a Django web application with a JavaScript frontend).
Essentially, the relationship we see between Python and JavaScript is similar to the one that exists between Python and C/C++/Rust/Go/etc, just on the side that sits between the Python code and the GUI, rather than between the Python code and the compute & storage systems.
As such, there are various libraries and transpilers that are designed to handle writing the JavaScript *for* you (bokeh, toga, JavaScripthon, etc), and the emergence of WASM as a frontend equivalent to machine code on the backend is only going to make the similarities in those dynamics more pronounced.
In that vein, it's highly *un*likely we'd add any redundant constructs to Python purely to make it easier for JS developers to use JS idioms in Python instead of Pythonic ones, but JavaScript *is* one of the languages we look at for syntactic consistency when considering potential new additions to Python.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/