You're completely missing the point here. If you are transpiling something, you don't need to worry about syntactic sugar in the base language you are transpiling to, only what you're transpiling from.
No, you don’t get it. Babel is for transpiling newer versions of JS to older ones, typically based on targeted browsers or Node runtimes.
JS is a fantastic fp language and pipe/compose is commonplace for people writing in that style already. This just adds first class support to the language
> No, you don’t get it. Babel is for transpiling newer versions of JS to older ones
For all intents and purposes, JavaScript with all the extra features it has accreted over the years is a different language from the JavaScript of a decade ago, and a compilation step is necessary in order for web browsers to parse it.
If you're running a compilation step anyway, you may as well write the code in a language that isn't such a dumpster fire.
> This just adds first class support to the language
If it was a different language you could say it "just" adds something, but javascript is not compiled and any syntax change means you start over as far as compatibility goes. It is unique in its scope and usage and this feature doesn't enable anything new for users and is only marginally useful for programmers.
Browsers add support for new JS features every year. You can use them or not, I don’t care what you do. Every web stack I’ve worked on in the last 7 years has a compile step, too, so you’re either ignorant or being intentionally obtuse. Either way it’s not like anyone should listen to you.
So what’s your point, other than communicating how upset you are over a programming language? That we should be writing websites like it’s 1999?
I'm not sure why you're having a meltdown over this. You still haven't answered why someone needs compatibility breaking syntax sugar if you're already compiling to javascript.
