[gwwar]

While this is pretty cool, I'm not really a fan of this. There is less to type, but I end up spending more time reading what the code is doing since there's more than one way to do it. (With optional parens, optional braces, and special syntax for returning objects in a single line).

I would have preferred a different function keyword that had lexical this binding.

[robcee]

Not sure I agree with you. After using them for a few months, they feel pretty natural, light-weight and used close to where you define them. There's actually less thinking required when using a fat-arrow function because you don't really have to worry about the scope.

[Pxtl]

I have to agree.

I code in C#. I often grouse about certain cases where we use characters instead of words - particularly in boolean logic (I find SQL code with AND and OR and NOT far more readable than C-ish characters)... and especially since the => operator is a perversion of comparison... I mean, it feels like a backwards less-than-or-equal.

But after diving headlong into C#'s various lambda and LINQ features, it's become quite natural, at least for cases where you're creating a function in-line as an argument to another call.

If I were coding more Javascript? I'd probably deprecate the function() syntax with its "this" re-binding misfeature altogether.