On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Bill Frantz <fra...@pwpconsult.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/5/12 at 1:50 AM, jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com (Jussi Kalliokoski) >> wrote: >> >>> I personally think returning `this` in absence of any meaningful value >>> (and >>> chaining in general) is a bad pattern. >> >> >> </lurk> >> >> I have to agree with Jussi here. Whenever I consider chaining using the >> returned values from the various things called, my programming paranoia hair >> stands on end. Let me try to explain: >> >> Whenever I program, I try to trust as little code as possible. With >> chaining, there are two possibilities for getting the wrong answer in the >> returned value: >> >> * I or someone else wrote it, but screwed up, >> * Someone hostile wrote it and is trying to trip me up. >> >> If there is a language construct that allows chaining -- like the Pascal >> "with" construct -- then I am only trusting the language*, not other >> fragments of programs. If I depend on things I call returning the correct >> "this", then I am depending on them and my dependency set is a lot larger. A >> larger dependency set makes me nervous. >> >> Cheers - Bill >> >> * For the really paranoid, minimizing the parts of the language depended >> on is important. Not all JS implementations behave the same way in the >> corner cases. > > > Again, I reject the notion that "someone might screw up" is a valid argument > for this, or any, discussion. It's one thing to be aware of the potential > for misuse, but entirely another to succumb to "fear driven design".
Is "fear driven design" just a derogatory phrase for "defensive programming"? > > Rick > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
