Merge branch 'master' into fix-uishell-skiptocontent

docs/style.md

@@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ row before the </tbody></table> line.
 ## Table of Contents
 
 - [Introduction](#introduction)
+- [JavaScript](#javascript)
+  - [Style](#style)
+    - [Be explicit](#be-explicit)
 - [React](#react)
   - [Guidelines](#guidelines)
     - [Writing a component](#writing-a-component)
@@ -90,6 +93,69 @@ code:
 _Inspired by
 [Minimal API Surface Area](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4anAwXYqLG8)_
 
+## JavaScript
+
+### Style
+
+#### Be explicit
+
+<table>
+<thead><tr><th>Unpreferred</th><th>Preferred</th></tr></thead>
+<tbody>
+<tr><td>
+
+```jsx
+const add = (a, b) => a + b;
+```
+
+</td><td>
+
+```jsx
+const add = (a, b) => {
+  return a + b;
+};
+```
+
+</td></tr>
+</tbody></table>
+
+Certain features in JavaScript have implicit behavior. One of these that we see
+most often is the implicit return behavior of arrow function expressions, for
+example:
+
+```js
+const add = (a, b) => a + b;
+```
+
+We've found that, while this style is terse and compact, it can be at odds with
+the fact that code is revisited often and that developers need to peak inside
+sometimes to see what is going on. For example, if we needed to debug a specific
+value in the function above then we would go through the following steps:
+
+```js
+// Step 1. The code as originally authored
+const add = (a, b) => a + b;
+
+// Step 2. Update the code to no longer use the implicit return
+const add = (a, b) => {
+  return a + b;
+};
+
+// Step 3. Add any debugging code or ways to introspect its values
+const add = (a, b) => {
+  console.log(a);
+  return a + b;
+};
+
+// Step 4. Undo these changes and bring back to original format
+const add = (a, b) => a + b;
+```
+
+If instead we had written this code without the implicit return then we would
+have saved three out of the four steps above. As a result, we tend to favor
+being explicit in how JavaScript is written instead of relying on implicit
+behavior.
+
 ## React
 
 ### Guidelines