A summary of feedback regarding the # sigil prefix

[glen-84]

Issue/comment	👍	👎	🎉	❤️
Stop this proposal	196	31	20	45
Why not use the "private" keyword, like Java or C#?	132	7	12	5
Why not use the "private" keyword, like Java or C#? 💬	144	0	16	9
Why not use the "private" keyword, like Java or C#? 💬	51	0	0	0
Private Properties Syntax	33	4	0	0
Yet another approach to a more JS-like syntax	32	0	0	41
New, more JS-like syntax	32	4	0	0
Please do not use "#"	32	0	1	1
Proposal: keyword to replace `#` sigil	18	0	0	1
Why not use private keyword instead of #?	16	0	0	1
Explore a more JS-like syntax	7	0	0	0
The '#' looks awful, please change it	9	4	0	0
can we just use private keyword?	2	0	0	0
Do we still have a chance to stop private fields (with #)?	3	3	1	1
[Private] yet another alternative to `#`-based syntax	3	0	0	0
and yet another suggestion for "private but not closure"	0	0	0	0
Why don't use `private` instead of `#`?	0	3	0	0
Why "private" and "protected" future reserved keywords are not used?	0	0	0	0

Other feedback:

• http://2ality.com/2017/07/class-fields.html
  • From the comments: "I'd rather shoot myself in the face than use hashtags for private fields."
    • 33 upvotes (comments closed)
• ES Next Features That'll Make You Dance
  • "And beware, you may have an adverse reaction ..."
  • "Oh, I heard somebody groan!"
  • Some comments:

    • #method() is gross, at least I use typescript and don't have to look at it. 👍30

    • So ES is becoming the new PHP "ugly-wise"? So glad i use typescript. They should have delayed that private method feature some more and thought some more to really avoid having that absolutely terrible, horrible looking # syntax. Ew.. In code everything is possible. EVERYTHING (if your not into computer science). If they have to break backward compat then so be it. So very bad.

    • I am excited about getting new features and I like to see things continuing to grow, I am not liking that private property syntax in the function, it looks like a comment and makes me shudder... everyone should be aware of this "fact" - every time someone gets confused and thinks the # symbol is actually a comment when JavaScript should have used the word private to declare a private entity, a bag of kittens gets thrown into a wood chipper, very sad.

    • Fix the private keyword issue please! The proposed syntax is not only inconsistent with the static declaration but also looks like a comment!

The TypeScript team are not fond of the syntax either.

My suggestion to rename the proposal: tc39/proposal-private-fields#72
(the idea is mainly about making it a lower-level feature, and making room for a cleaner syntax at a later date)

@littledan @bakkot @ljharb – I apologize in advance, as I know that you must be thinking "Oh g*d, not again!", but I just wanted to put this all in one place, and allow the community to share their opinion in the form of reactions. It would be great if you could keep this open for a while (30 days?), or perhaps even indefinitely to prevent other users from submitting even more issues on the same topic.

To the non-committee members reading this: These proposals are now at stage 3, so it's unlikely that a syntax change will occur, but please feel free to up-vote this issue if you feel that the sigil (#) prefix is not a good fit for the language, or down-vote the issue if you believe that it's perfectly acceptable.

[bakkot]

Um. Thanks for the effort, but... I don't really get what you intend this issue to accomplish. We've seen this feedback already.

[glen-84]

I don't really get what you intend this issue to accomplish

1. Emphasize and centralize the large amount of negative feedback towards the sigil prefix
2. Prevent users from submitting the same topic over and over again

We've seen this feedback already

Repeatedly. And how many unique threads does the commitee need to see before they consider it a real issue, as that clearly hasn't happened yet.

[bakkot]

Prevent users from submitting the same topic over and over again

I was kinda hoping the FAQ would accomplish that, but no such luck so far. Still, might be worth a shot.

And how many unique threads does the commitee need to see before they consider it a real issue

We do and always have considered it a real issue. But as always it's one to be balanced against other issues, which we've done, and we concluded that this was the right path. There's no number of threads which will cause the constraints to change.

[stevenvachon]

The day that ECMAScript/JavaScript died.

[ljharb]

@glen-84 That isn't unique threads nor unique counts; how many of those 99 or 111 etc are the same people? If you actually uniquify it to "how many unique accounts have indicated dislike of #", the numbers will be less impressive.

Either way, "popularity" is not nearly as relevant as the issues listed in the FAQ. There is no tenable syntax alternative, and no sigil that's any "better" in terms of the complaints you're describing.

[thysultan]

This documents a few others not listed here.

@ljharb There are tenable alternatives and community backlash is not the only motivating factor as there are concrete issues with the dot#sigil syntax that have mostly been ignored – #28 and #56.

[ljharb]

@thysultan I wouldn't say ignored; more, considered and disagreed with.

[glen-84]

That isn't unique threads nor unique counts; how many of those 99 or 111 etc are the same people? If you actually uniquify it to "how many unique accounts have indicated dislike of #", the numbers will be less impressive.

I never said that they were unique counts. Even if the numbers aren't very high, the relative numbers are significant IMO.

Either way, "popularity" is not nearly as relevant as the issues listed in the FAQ. There is no tenable syntax alternative, and no sigil that's any "better" in terms of the complaints you're describing.

There is no tenable syntax alternative currently. That may change in 5-10 years. All I'm suggesting is to make room for a cleaner syntax in the future, by making this a lower-level (read: even uglier) feature and letting users transpile to that from better-looking code (code that actually looks like JavaScript, and not ASCII art).

[tasogare3710]

@stevenvachon

                   __________\
                  /          \\\
                 /    REST    \\\
                /      IN      \\\
               /     PEACE      \\\
              /                  \\\
              |       es         |\
              |                  |\
              |   killed by a    |\
              |  private-fields  |\
              |       2018       |\
             *|     *  *  *      | *\
     ________)/\\\\_//(\\/(/\\)/\\//\\/|_)_______

[tasogare3710]

People are not merely dislike sigil, they point out a many real issues. someone does not understand it well. However, this proposal is nothing that can be done as it has reached stage 3.

Everything happens for a reason.

[bakkot]

There is no tenable syntax alternative currently. That may change in 5-10 years.

There are fairly strong reasons to believe that will not be the case. Few of the considerations in the FAQ are likely to change.

[littledan]

Even before this compilation, it was clear to me that discomfort with # is widespread, and this discomfort has been visible to the committee for a couple years. However, I agree with @bakkot that it's unlikely that we will find a better syntax in the future.

Whenever I have discussed this issue with someone in person, explaining the argument in the FAQ, they have ultimately been accepting of the # syntax. It seems like many of the people who agree with the motivation for adding private fields and methods are accepting of the ergonomic cost of this syntax. It also seems like most of the concern comes from it not being exactly this.x--I don't have the feeling that any other syntax will be as popular.

[glen-84]

There are fairly strong reasons to believe that will not be the case. Few of the considerations in the FAQ are likely to change.

That's unfortunate. Long live TypeScript (and WebAssembly + C#?).

It is pretty clear that the JS community looks at this proposal with disdain, so I must ask: who is this proposal for? The community clearly dislikes the syntax. Enterprise? TypeScript team clearly dislikes the syntax and they are really big in the enterprise.

Why do you even allow the community to contact the team, when you just disrespectfully dismiss everything, even valid points.

If you don't care about the community's voice a single bit then just straight up state the facts instead of sugar coating things and dancing around the issue. There are a ton of more appealing suggestions regarding the syntax and instead of talking about it with the community you just shut down the discussions.

This is ridiculous.