Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

caolanmcmahon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#21

Post by wcummings »

hamburglar wrote: post #16
wcummings wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

underscore.js is a pretty good sized collection of utilities, which is why you call it a lot. I am having a hard time believing you're going to be constructing so many Highland streams that you need a one-character identifier for it to increase readability.

If you look at the full docs, there is a lot of overlap, highland provides a lot of of the functions from underscore.js, and since from what I can tell its trying to unify the "javascript utility belt", I can only imagine more will be added.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#22

Post by hamburglar »

badman_ting wrote: post #15
hamburglar wrote: post #10

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…

Just seems like a silly thing to get hung up on.

Naming is important for code readability. I think a lot of people recognize that. Which is why I'm so baffled by this trend of "screw it, I won't even bother with a name! Call everything underscore!"

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#23

Post by al2o3cr »

wcummings wrote: post #21
hamburglar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

underscore.js is a pretty good sized collection of utilities, which is why you call it a lot. I am having a hard time believing you're going to be constructing so many Highland streams that you need a one-character identifier for it to increase readability.

If you look at the full docs, there is a lot of overlap, highland provides a lot of of the functions from underscore.js, and since from what I can tell its trying to unify the "javascript utility belt", I can only imagine more will be added.

"highland provides a lot of of the functions from underscore.js"

"A lot of the functions" (versus "all of the functions") sounds like a one-way ticket to readability hell, since it means that an inattentive reader may assume the functions ARE from Underscore.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#24

Post by hamburglar »

caolanmcmahon wrote: post #19
hamburglar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think I'm getting the hang of HN ;)

But seriously, it seems like a pretty neat library. I just think your nomenclature is the suxxors and eventually we're going to look back on this trend and think, "boy, making everyone reading your code wonder which _ you're talking about is a pretty silly way to save a couple characters."

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#25

Post by bigonlogn »

hamburglar wrote: post #13
caolanmcmahon wrote: post #11

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.

> You could make a better choice.

But you can call it whatever you want, so... who cares? The choice is yours... Being a pedant is hardly constructive.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#26

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hamburglar wrote: post #10

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 agree; what I personally wonder is why Underscore and similar libraries don't make use of Javascript's prototype business and add methods to the array and object prototypes? Probably things I'm overlooking here, but, [1, 2, 3].map(stuff) is much nicer than _.map([1, 2, 3], stuff) and the like.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#27

Post by b3n »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #26
hamburglar wrote: post #10

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 agree; what I personally wonder is why Underscore and similar libraries don't make use of Javascript's prototype business and add methods to the array and object prototypes? Probably things I'm overlooking here, but, [1, 2, 3].map(stuff) is much nicer than _.map([1, 2, 3], stuff) and the like.

It's considered bad practice to add add methods to the prototypes of built in objects because it has the chance of breaking other people's code.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#28

Post by jashkenas »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #26
hamburglar wrote: post #10

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 agree; what I personally wonder is why Underscore and similar libraries don't make use of Javascript's prototype business and add methods to the array and object prototypes? Probably things I'm overlooking here, but, [1, 2, 3].map(stuff) is much nicer than _.map([1, 2, 3], stuff) and the like.

Ha ha.

You're describing the state of affairs before Underscore existed, back when functional-ish programming in JavaScript was ruled by Prototype.js:

http://prototypejs.org/

... which added a lot of useful methods to native prototypes.

While handy in controlled and limited environments, mucking about with native prototypes quickly becomes extremely dangerous and difficult — once you have two third-party modules on the page that expect different versions of your patched prototype method ... once you have a new version of a browser that implements one of your previously-extended functions, but does it differently — you're pretty well screwed. Both of those things tended to happen in large sites.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#29

Post by gruseom »

hamburglar wrote: post #22
badman_ting wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just seems like a silly thing to get hung up on.

Naming is important for code readability. I think a lot of people recognize that. Which is why I'm so baffled by this trend of "screw it, I won't even bother with a name! Call everything underscore!"

Please don't bikeshed in technical threads. One comment on something like this is more than enough; zero is probably better.

When a new thing comes out, the discussion should focus on what's significant about it.

Re: How I want to write Node: Stream all the things

#30

Post by platz »

caolanmcmahon wrote: post #20
eplawless wrote: post #17

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.

Rx doesn't handle back-pressure or laziness, so it's for only really for handling events.

since `fastSource.map(slowThing)` automatically pauses the source while the slow thing is processing, how is this different from iteration? It also states that in the case of a non-pausable source it will buffer the data. How does it know when to pause vs when to buffer.

Is there some way to know what kind of source you've got, or are the the sources constructed in a way that chooses which behavior you get?

Post reply on HN