When should I use arrow functions in ECMAScript 6?

With () => {} and function () {} we are getting two very similar ways to write functions in ES6. In other languages lambda functions often distinguish themselves by being anonymous, but in ECMAS...

Stack Overflow
Den ganzen Tag mit Typescript/Javascript verbraucht.
#JavaScriptIsBroken
I had a nice idea for a project I wanted to do, so I tried to get Electron, React, TypeScript, and Jest to play nicely without cloning somebody else’s project and yes, now I’m not doing the project anymore. :( #fuckthisshit #fuckjavascript #javascriptisbroken #javascriptisreallybroken #javascriptishorriblybroken #javascriptsecosystemisworsethanscalas
×
@wyatt8740 delicate and ambiguous? I feel like this is a formatting question. with parentheses they're very clear and non-ambiguous. virtually anything can be kind of ambiguous with poor formatting in most languages.
@jorin yeah but i still personally find arrow notation unnecessarily confusing and counterintuitive to more people than the ALGOL-style function definition
@wyatt8740 My general approach is to use function for module/class level definitions, and arrows for inline stuff. When writing top level, function feels more readable. But inline, just having e.g. `(x) => x.toUpper()` cuts down on line length and cruft so much. A huge flaw in TS is that you can't give a module function definition a type that it must fulfil the way you can with a variable carrying a function. So very occasionally I'll break my usual convention. But that's a flaw of TS, not JS.
@jorin yeah i don't use microsoft products as a rule so i know nothing of typescript except that it's more annoying to decipher compiled typescript usually
@wyatt8740 that's an enviable position