MOMosheZada·Nov 15, 2019Submission
1 points · Open discussiontc39
proposal-pipeline-operator
HTML2015–2026
tc39 / proposal-pipeline-operator
proposal-pipeline-operator
A proposal for adding a useful pipe operator to JavaScript.
70Distinct people
86Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
7.9KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
A proposal for adding a useful pipe operator to JavaScript.
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
- tc39/proposal-pattern-matching · linked in 6 of the same discussions
- tc39/proposal-do-expressions · linked in 2 of the same discussions
Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 10:56:20 AM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year86 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2015-12-06 20:14:11 UTC to 2026-10-16 14:49:40 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 7 | 3 | 4 |
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 9 | 3 | 6 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 16 | 5 | 11 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 13 | 1 | 12 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
What Hacker News says
8 sourcesSure Python has many problems, but these aren't a great selection.
> The syntax for classical inheritance. Half of each Django app is super().__init__(args, *kwargs). At least you don't have to pass arguments to super anymore.
Yes, inheritance is hard to do well, but that's generally true. Much better to prefer composition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance)
> Too many magic __double-underscore__ methods and properties that you have to just memorize.
Better to just start using http://attrs.org or dataclasses so you don't have to do all the manual work. Classes without boilerplate.
> Too many top-level built-in functions that (a) you have to just memorize, and (b) get really ugly. You end up with stuff like list(map(...)). I haven't used so many nested parentheses since my early days in PHP. Guido's explanation mak
Read the rest
es sense in theory, but is really annoying in practice.
I agree, there should be a pipeline operator |> like F# has. A similar proposal has been made for JS. https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator
> Too many other weirdo bits of magic syntax, like [list comprehensions].
List comprehensions are good, they just take 5 minutes of getting used to.
> Django specifically is so full of magic words, and its documentation is so convoluted, that I've basically given up on documentation altogether and just look at the Django source code now.
Pyramid has a much more principled design IMHO. https://trypyramid.com/
> Needing to put dict property names `{'in': 'quotes'}.
Or use `dict(foo=5)`. Python mappings can contain non-string keys, so `{5: 1.2, 6: 3.4}` maps ints to floats.
> You have to cast your data back to a list/tuple after using enumerate() and map().
Don't use map, use comprehensions.
> Different syntaxes for lists and tuples.
They are different objects, why would they have the same syntax?
> foo['bar'] returns a KeyError, so you have to do foo.get('bar')... or in some cases getattr(foo, 'bar', None), but not in others because getattr and .get are different things.
Python is a different language from Javascript.
> You can't just tack on flags to /regular_expressions/ig.
Yeah that's annoying.
> All the goofy string literals: f' ', u' ', r' ', etc.
That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
> Pipfile does not work that well.
Poetry works better. https://poetry.eustace.io
>let x: 5 # ==> x is now 5
>x: "Hola Mundo" # ==> x has changed types
One of the biggest complaints people have about JS is the lack of strict typing. So, this doesn't appear to solve it.
Inversely, one thing a lot of older JS people dislike (I'm an older JS person, but this doesn't apply to me) is how functional JS is getting, so I don't think this will be very popular with that crowd. Especially considering how many features are being added via the ecmascript proposal process/babel transpiration (eg: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator)
In Z – A dynamic functional programming language that compiles to JavaScriptTc39 – Proposal Pipeline Operator
2 points · Open discussionI guess it's because of potential ambiguity, it's discussed here: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/14...
In Babel 7.5ESNext Proposal: The Pipeline Operator
2 points · Open discussionA proposal for adding the simple-but-useful pipeline operator to JavaScript
1 points · Open discussionTo this point, JS has been very careful to not get in the way of functional programming, as it doesn't really try to stick to a specific paradigm. There is even a proposal to add pipielines: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator.
Personally, I think forcing yourself to a specific paradigm is a waste of energy. I've tend to just write code that best expresses my intention. Sometimes the code turns out more oop, sometimes it turns out more fp, and often it's more of a mix.
In Functional Programming Is on the Rise