> I don't see why the semantics of it not being included yet doesn't make it JS.
You don’t see why something not being included in JavaScript doesn’t make it JavaScript? Really?
> I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature"
JSX is not an experimental JS feature. You’re trying to draw an equivalence between decorators and JSX, but they aren’t equivalent at all.
Decorators were submitted for inclusion into JavaScript. They have undergone a lot of review to determine whether they belong in JavaScript, and people agreed they did. The specification has been refined to make them suitable for inclusion into JavaScript. Everybody plans on decorators becoming part of JavaScript. Browsers will implement decorators.
JSX, on the other hand, is explicitly not proposed for inclusion into JavaScript. The second and third sentences of the JSX specification read:
> It's NOT intended to be implemented by engines or browsers. It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself.
The second sentence is even bolded in the specification. They wanted to be 100% clear about it.
The standards committee isn’t reviewing JSX for suitability for inclusion into JavaScript. Nobody is planning on JSX becoming part of JavaScript. No browsers are planning on implementing JSX.
These are two entirely different situations. Decorators being on the cusp of becoming JavaScript does not mean that JSX is JavaScript.
So far he's ignored instead of addressing all the valid points you've made, and now he's trying to derail the conversation by bringing up experimental features, which, as you say, have nothing to do with anything else.
Since he's working from his own definition of the word "is", and his own definition of the JavaScript standard, there's no way he's going to admit what he said is wrong, even though it is, and the JSX designers were 100% clear in their documentation about shooting down his mistaken idea that JSX is JavaScript.
Now that you've made that point, he's probably just going to try to derail and change the subject again, like he was just trying to do by diverting the discussion to decorators.
You don’t see why something not being included in JavaScript doesn’t make it JavaScript? Really?
> I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature"
JSX is not an experimental JS feature. You’re trying to draw an equivalence between decorators and JSX, but they aren’t equivalent at all.
Decorators were submitted for inclusion into JavaScript. They have undergone a lot of review to determine whether they belong in JavaScript, and people agreed they did. The specification has been refined to make them suitable for inclusion into JavaScript. Everybody plans on decorators becoming part of JavaScript. Browsers will implement decorators.
JSX, on the other hand, is explicitly not proposed for inclusion into JavaScript. The second and third sentences of the JSX specification read:
> It's NOT intended to be implemented by engines or browsers. It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself.
The second sentence is even bolded in the specification. They wanted to be 100% clear about it.
The standards committee isn’t reviewing JSX for suitability for inclusion into JavaScript. Nobody is planning on JSX becoming part of JavaScript. No browsers are planning on implementing JSX.
These are two entirely different situations. Decorators being on the cusp of becoming JavaScript does not mean that JSX is JavaScript.