Currently I’m just playing.

Sampilo: Really enjoying ecma 6

Workinger: I thought overloading was multiple constructors?

Hickam: Also, Overloaded seems to be completely unnecessary to that example.

Kuckens: Function overloading can be any function, not just a constructor

Hickam: There is no overloading available

Rabuse: In other languages that support it anyway

Kirsten: Var do***ent = p****r.p****’!DOCTYPE htmlhtmlhead/headbodyHi there!/body/html’ is the do***ent variable a js word?

Hickam: Django_: just a varilable name.

Zahniser: Hickam: on my sublime it comes out blue, file is /js

Hickam: Django_: by default, it’s bound to the HTML DOM do***ent

Hickam: Which is probably why

Hickam: You probably don’t want to shadow it, you probably better to just call it doc

Wage: Im following this:****5

Farrall: I tried the example in ‘usage’ ran it and the output is emptu

Stambach: I hope the maintainers of javascript eventually get around to adding function overloading :

Breuninger: Fprophet: overloading is a bad idea in general, though. Most of the time, you actually want something like dynamic dispatching.

Ashley: Dekok: how is it a bad idea?

Wydeven: And JS already has that one :

Wigger: Fprophet: it’s hard to reason about, without giving you any actual benefits. Specially with things like operators.

Sheen: It’s less bad when overloading just the arity, but JS can’t do that because all functions are variadic.

Quencer: And you can always just write different functions anyway. Which would be the very same thing.

Opher: Dekok: well it would be valuable for me right now for my current project, multiple constructors with or without certain arguments to perform a different task 😛

Hickam: Though, it’s a lot easier to write a function that “supports” it with destructuring and default argument values

Bolerjack: Fprophet, it may seem like it, but usually that’s not a good idea

Copney: Fprophet: having a single constructor that takes several different configurations is a sign of bad design. Also, v8 won’t be able to optimise your code.

Bolerjack: If you need “overloading” you may want polymorphism, and can do that in JS with duck typing

Squadrito: Fprophet: just provide different constructors instead

Ards: Fprophet if the issue is your function arguments, p*** in an object as the first parameter instead

Prosch: Or what Dekok just said

Boss: It’s more of a convenience I guess

Puma: Fprophet: it’s not convenient for you, nor for the person calling your code, though.

Bolerjack: What is the use case? what is an example?

Sessler: Languages **** : we still add things to languages that’s supposed to make it easier for developers and we haven’t stopped _

Samas: Fprophet: separating the functions gives you 1 fast code; 2 easy-to-reason code; 3 easy-to-maintain code; 4 simple code, for both you, and whomever decides to call your function; 5 you can actually compose it, unlike ad-hoc polymorphic functions based on the arguments.

Gedris: Operator overloading is really nice when you want to create “containers” You can overload . it’s really nice for things like vectors/matrices. etc

Mcnaught: I’m just wanting to add dynamically add content to a page if it hasnt been created already. its’ not important. I was just curious if the language had it

Hickam: Rcyr: but isn’t that useful if you don’t have operators at the same time

Bolerjack: I don’t see much pain in doing Vector

Aguillar: There are a million ways for me to achieve the same thing I want, though

Vanstrander: Bolerjack: var r = vec1 + vec2 + vec3; or var r = vec1.addvec2.addvec3 ?

Meyerhoff: Currently I’m just playing around with ecma 6 and I’m actually enjoying it a ton