proposal-iterator-helpers VS proposal-record-tuple

Global iterator type is coming: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

But a method named `groupBy` on iterators traditionally means a different thing: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-array-grouping/issues/51#is...

Global iterable type it's too late for, since there's many extant iterables in the language and on the web which don't have it in their prototype chain and can't reasonably be changed.

Very much agreed. The amount of mileage we get from using Spread (literally the ...) alone has been amazing. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... Iteration helpers is shipping soon, that'll be a huge help (async iteration helpers will be delayed for a while). https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers .

In the olden days, I feel like the codebases I worked on needed to use .apply() multiple times a week, to figure out some creative way of invoking functions. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... That's all gone now; I'd take even odds that 50% of my team knows .call and .apply.

Chrome 117 is shipping Object.groupBy() and that's gonna be a huge help in eliminating a lot of the last places we end up using lodash. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Once this https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers reaches browsers, I'm prob gonna be exclusively using Maps.

No, probably not. But with iterator helpers, you can do

> focus more on improving the terrible JS web API

That's W3C’s job, not ECMA’s.

> Where are all the containers?

?

> Sorted sets/maps?

Sets and Maps are sorted (by insertion order)

> Why can't I even map an iterator?

It's coming, but someone will likely be exhausted by that addition. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

Upcoming: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers

Not Generators, but Iterators have a Stage 3 proposal with helpers like these.

I guess you are not the only one dealing with this. That’s why there is this proposal https://github.com/tc39/proposal-iterator-helpers So hopefully it will get easier soon. But in most cases you can simply wrap it in Array.from or you can also clone with the spread operator.

Let's assume Number.range(), iterator helpers and some isPrime() function. From that we could easily create the following:

relevant issue, which is at the crux of this problem: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/387

There are still so many basic things that aren't in the JS stdlib, though. A good example is Map - if you need to use a tuple of two values as a key, you're SOL because there's no way to customize key comparisons. Hopefully we'll get https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/ eventually, but meanwhile languages ranging from C++ to Java to Python have had some sensible way to do this for over 20 years now.

If you’re reaching for structuredClone, what you really want is native immutable Record and Tuple syntax, and the companion “deep path properties” syntax which allows for efficient and ergonomic immutable updates:

- https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple

It will be called "record" in JavaScript which will swing the popularity back the other way I guess (currently a language proposal)

I suspect considering the strong desire to maintain consistency with JavaScript, we will eventually see something that when the Record proposal passes through tc39

I hope the Record and Tuple proposal makes it through

I mean, I'd love some real immutable/persistent data structures in JS by default, or even some Immer-like syntax sugar. Something like the record/tuple proposal would be awesome.

This will become very useful once Records and Tuples are a thing, because it allows you to store object references in a record/tuple (which by definition can only contain primitives).

Record and tuple is at stage 2

Also, js has an ongoing immutable value data types proposal.