On Thursday, March 08, 2012 18:46:56 H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:07:49PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday, March 08, 2012 15:52:37 H. S. Teoh wrote: > [...] > > > > $(selector) > > > .html(htmlcode) > > > .add(more_nodes) > > > .css(some_styles) > > > .filter(unwanted_nodes) > > > .click(click_handler) > > > .show(); > > > > > > Writing this in function composition order would cause an instant > > > quantum leap in unreadability. > > > > Which just goes to show that it's also a question of what you're used > > to, because I find that using the order that you did here rather than > > normal function call chaining is what causes an instance quantum leap > > in unreadibility. > > [...] > > The order I did it here can be read from top to bottom, just like a > sequence of statements. The function composition order would have to be > read from bottom to top, contrary to the general flow of control in the > rest of the code. That's what makes it unreadable.
I see where you're coming from. It's just not the same for me. I find function chaining to be much easier to read when it's done the normal way. And if I'm looking for functions to be like a sequence of statements, then I'm going to write them that way instead of chaining them. - Jonathan M Davis