Harmony... that's what the upcomming JS is called. It has some new syntax... and it's perl syntax... but does something totally different! So let me show you why I will be confused for the years to come:
These 2 things are equivalent:

people.map(function (person) { return person.age; }));  
people.map(person => person.age);

[download]
Why? Why a fat arrow... why not the other way? <=

Then there is let, which is similar to my but you seem to still be able to mix var in and create a scope mess...

They also use modules, with named import's (just like in perl you can require certain things from a pm).
And the templating... oh noes... the templating uses backtick/backquote... 
var name = 'John';  
var age = 29;  
return `My name is ${ name }, in a year I will be ${ age + 1 } years o
+ld`;

[download]

Interested in reading more about JS6? Here is a link:
ecmascript6-introduction

Now leave me be... I'm drowning my pain in beer...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: What's new in ECMAScript6, or: Oh no! Don't steal syntax from Perl!
by wrog (Friar) on May 30, 2015 at 19:50 UTC
    Looks more like Haskell to me
    (minus the backslash-lambda thingie they use)

    and the backquote stuff is almost certainly from Lisp (...though so is a fair amount of Perl, to be fair...)

[reply]
      Well "let" is certainly lisp and that's where Perl got the concept of lexical variables from.

      The backquote in lisp is used in macro expansions if you want only some parts of the code to be expanded.(preceded by comma not dollar)

      That's similar to.variable.interpolation but different because the result is code (a lisp list to be precise which is anything) and not a string like in Perl.

      And I've never seen this construct outside of macros. (does it even work?)

      So yes this part is Perlish, but not particular, its also Bashish or even Shish (= omni shellish)

      I'd say back tick was taken to avoid backward incompatibilities with.double quotes as delimiter.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
      Je suis Charlie!

[reply]
        but different because the result is code (a lisp list to be precise which is anything) and not a string like in Perl. And I've never seen this construct outside of macros. (does it even work?)

        It does, actually. Keep in mind lisp doesn't really distinguish between code and data (the interior of a lambda is a list like everything else (*)). You can use the backquote anywhere you can use a regular quote. And this does come up: sometimes the backquote is the easiest way to build a complex data structure.

        (Conversely, you can use a regular quote in a macro if you have a template that's actually constant, i.e., if there are no holes, then it doesn't matter which you use -- except in that people will expect the backquote, be confused if they don't see it, and it generally doesn't cost extra -- macro-expansion happens at compile time anyway),

        (*) unless you're trying to do hygenic macros, in which case you need extra structure, i.e., it's not enough to build a list to represent your code; there needs to be something extra that remembers the state of the lexical environment at the point where the list was built so that when the various lists later get getting shuffled around in the course of macro expansion any variables included within will always be the "right" ones

[reply]
Re: What's new in ECMAScript6, or: Oh no! Don't steal syntax from Perl!
by LanX (Saint) on May 30, 2015 at 10:07 UTC
    I doubt the double arrow ("fat comma" aka rocket) is inspired by Perl.

    Think I saw this at least in Scala for similar kind of lambdas.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

[reply]
Re: What's new in ECMAScript6, or: Oh no! Don't steal syntax from Perl!
by morgon (Priest) on May 30, 2015 at 23:02 UTC
    It certainly goes without saying that anybody using a fat comma for whatever purposes should pay royalties to Larry but it has made appearances in the JS-world before JS6 - it is e.g. used in CoffeeScript.
[reply]
Re: What's new in ECMAScript6, or: Oh no! Don't steal syntax from Perl!
by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jun 01, 2015 at 12:28 UTC

    Dunno, to me it just seems to be yet-another language that has enjoyed some success, that is now trying to grow tangentally ... into new directions (which require much more of a “compile, then execute” strategy than original-JS does), while borrowing shamelessly upon a predecessor’s reputation and trade-name.   (We have certainly seen that before, around here.)

    Personally, I predict that this kind of language development (particularly on mobile platforms) will actually take a different direction:   to leverage a technology known as transpilers.   These are “language compilers which produce source-code as output, possibly “among other things.”   (Haxe is one that has become very critical to me, but it’s not the only one.)

    The ECMAScript nee JavaScript language has become massive, with billions of lines of installed base, and with interpreters that can’t change much because people won’t their web browsers and can’t upgrade their phones.   (Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone spends $600+ every two years like clockwork on “a new iPhone.”   E/J Script is popular but it is also a least-common denominator.)

    So, you really can’t change that target much.   But what you can change how source-code is written in and for it.   You can write in much higher-level idioms, and compile it to this or any one of several targets.   Including bytecodes run by tiny interpreters and prepared by truly-optimizing transpilers.

Back to Meditations