One of the best advice I got was "Code is written once but read many times".
This particularly holds for public API and thus I often compromise
more on the readability side rather than code size or verbosity.
Beside Garrett's example, my favorite classic of the so-called
"Boolean trap" is:
fo
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gregor wrote:
> But this shifts the programmers task to "remember the property names".
>
/**
* @param {Boolean} a
* @param {String} b
* @param {Object} options
* - x:int=0
* - y:int=0
* - title:string=""
* - onClick:function=null
* - onClose:function=nul
auyet
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 7:49 PM
To: The JSMentors JavaScript Discussion Group
Subject: [JSMentors] Re: JS API Design - Accepting Parameters
Andraž Kos wrote:
There is a simpler common sense reason to always use an Object for all
params: [ ... ]
runme(args) can be called:
runme({&#
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 21:16, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 1/14/11, Andraž Kos wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:59, Garrett Smith
> wrote:
> >
> >> I would remove that comment and rename that from "args" to something
> >> like "options".
> >>
> >
> > term came from C language and we all know
On 1/14/11, Andraž Kos wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:59, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> I would remove that comment and rename that from "args" to something
>> like "options".
>>
>
> term came from C language and we all know where args are born: command line.
>
When I see "args" in javascript, t
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:59, Garrett Smith wrote:
> I would remove that comment and rename that from "args" to something
> like "options".
>
term came from C language and we all know where args are born: command line.
If you are familliar with unix philosophy of programming (
http://www.faqs.
I took a combo approach on a recent project:
https://github.com/mathiasbynens/benchmark.js/blob/master/benchmark.js#L81
// I allow `fn` because test `fn` is required
new Benchmark(fn);
// or a name first because other devs require a name too (an options
object for just a name is bulky) and...
new
On 1/13/11, Arlo wrote:
> This group is the best thing that happen to the internet since
> broadband! You guys are awesome! I definitely appreciate all
> feedback and I am taking everything into consideration. What I really
> need to apply from this discussion is type checking,
jQuery came up
This group is the best thing that happen to the internet since
broadband! You guys are awesome! I definitely appreciate all
feedback and I am taking everything into consideration. What I really
need to apply from this discussion is type checking, so that param1
can be an object or a string depen
On Jan 13, 5:37 pm, Arlo wrote:
> I am developing a JS API for my employer and I constantly ask myself
> how I should accept params into my methods. So I figured I would ask
> the professionals.
>
> Here is my scenario:
> 1.) I know a handful of basic methods that I need to implement right
> now.
10 matches
Mail list logo
