New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replace outdated ES6 page with node.green #674
Conversation
"link": "docs/es6", | ||
"text": "ES6 in Node.js" | ||
"link": "http://node.green", | ||
"text": "ES6 and beyond" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we go ahead and update this to ES2015 while we're at it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ES6 is also a valid name. ES2015 is a bit long and the tab doesn't look as good.
-1, the point of that page is also to be friendly. |
I have to agree with @benjamingr - there needs to be a page that explains the flags. Maybe I could work something in to node.green for that- but I would want the node community's input on how that should look. |
Hm... most people +1ed here as writing our own es6 would cause a lot of maintaining issues. I wanted to write something myself but I feel whatever I write, it wont solve the problem and I might end up writing a es6 tutorial. node.green is something I always wanted to see. I believe a little bit description on node.green would be helpful. |
Okay, I have an idea: Let's keep the current ES6 page to explain the flags, etc. and just replace the paragraph "Which features ship with Node.js by default (no runtime flag required)?" with a link to node.green – so @williamkapke doesn't have to come up with a way to introduce all the texts to his site. |
Wouldn't it be easier if the text is on node.green? One less clicking is good :) |
Half the people want to get rid of the ES6 page, the other half doesn't … just figure something out, I'll adjust the PR then. 😉 |
+1 |
I'm also in favor of what @fhemberger suggested: keep the page, replace the part with "which features" with node.green. I say we move ahead with that suggestion. |
9a5fe57
to
d4f7bd3
Compare
Okay, I updated the PR: We keep the ES6 page and I added a reference to node.green. Please take a look and let me know what you think. |
* [Rest Parameters](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/rest_parameters) (represent an indefinite number | ||
of arguments as an array, behind flag `--harmony_rest_parameters`) [[2]](#ref-2)<span id="backref-2"></span> | ||
The website [node.green](http://node.green) provides an excellent overview over supported ECMAScript features in various versions of Node.js, based on kangax's compat-table: | ||
<br><a href="http://node.green" class="imagelink">![Screenshot of the node.green website](/static/images/node-green-screenshot.png)</a> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need a screenshot?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lpinca looks like it's already part og this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I mean is it necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahh sorry. I assume you mean it's unnecessary and I agree. I don't think we need to "prepare" the end user for what he/she 's about to see. Another downside is we would have to keep the screenshot updated to whatever design changes node.green gets in the future.
LGTM |
Definitely -1 on a static screenshot alone. |
I'm frame?
|
d4f7bd3
to
f014b5c
Compare
Ok, removed the screenshot again, keeping only the link. |
I guess there could be more clarification on the difference of the |
@williamkapke I opened up a separate issue for this in #694. With v6 released, we need the updated ES6 page. |
Fixes #671, requires nodejs/build#394 to land as well.