11–20 of 118 posts
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
I'm excited about this, as someone who uses underscore.js and async together, heavily.
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
var Highland = require('highland');
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
This is highly intriguing, but I must ask why the JS community has this fascination with obscure identifiers like "_". It decreases readability when what should be a logically-chosen descriptive identifier for your class is replaced with a single character that visually recedes into the language syntax. Edit: I've grudgingly given jquery a pass on this because of its ubiquity, but come on, a stream library? Not to me…
In my codebases, literally 1/10 lines or more contain at least one call to underscore.js, frequently more than one (not even including async). Its for brevity. If you wrote out underscore.* or Highland.* your code would become hard to read. These are utility functions that are used heavily. I'm excited about this, as someone who uses underscore.js and async together, heavily.
Sometimes simplicity is a feature, too, though.
If you're doing Node.js, Caolan's async library is pretty much part of the standard toolkit. I know Caolan's been thinking about this and reworking it for a while, so I'll be interested to see whether it manages to see significant takeup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
var Highland = require('highland');
Yes, clearly you can do that, but it's obviously not your intent. All the docs use _ as the class name, and that's what you use internally. The class is named "_" and that's what people using it are going to expect to see if it becomes popular. You could make a better choice.
I'm curious which features highland provides which RxJS doesn't. From what I understand, composable streams from any data source with backpressure support is pretty much the definition of Rx. Sometimes simplicity is a feature, too, though.