112 ms·

Small modules are easy to reason about They really aren't, when I'm reading is-positive-integer(x) and wonder if 0 is positive I need to hunt down the definiti

by EdiX 11y ago

Small modules are easy to reason about They really aren't, when I'm reading is-positive-integer(x) and wonder if 0 is positive I need to hunt down the definition of positive through two packages and as many files. And it gets wrose if both your code and one of your dependencies required 'is-positive-integer' and I have to also figure out which version each part of the code base is using. If you had written (x > 0) I would have known immediately, it also wouldn't be doing the same thing as is-positive-integer(x) but how many calls to is-positive-integer are actually correct in all the corner cases that is-positive-integer covers? And then there's the other problem with dependencies: you are trusting some unknown internet person to not push a minor version that breaks your build because you and Dr. is-positive-integer had different definitions of 'backwards compatibility'.

ShellfishMeme 11y ago
JS does not have an Integer type, so (x > 0) does not work. Now if you add all those checks necessary to see whether you're actually dealing with an integer here, you get to a point where you cannot be sure anymore whether there aren't any weird type coercion issues there and need to start writing tests. Suddenly your whole positive integer check took 1h to write and you still cannot be sure whether there's something you didn't think of. I'd rather use an external library for that that's properly unit tested.
- EdiX 11y ago
  JS does not have an Integer type, so (x > 0) does not work It depends on what the surrounding code actually does wheter (x > 0) works or not. Depending on the version of is-positive-integer you are using a positive instance of the class Number may return true, false or cause an error. PS. never mind that the implementation of is-positive-integer is extremely inefficient.
- minitech 11y ago
  A module doesn’t solve that kind of type confusion, though. Static typing does. The next best thing in JavaScript is passing consistent types of values to your functions, so just write function isPositiveInteger(x) { return x > 0 && Number.isInteger(x); } and always pass it a number. (Of course, this shouldn’t even be a function, because JavaScript is confused about the definition of “integer” – maybe you really want `x >>> 0 === x` – and apparently is-positive-integer is confused about the definition of “positive”, so it’ll be clearer to just put things inline.)
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > A module doesn’t solve that kind of type confusion, though. Static typing does. That's the root of all the problems, though, isn't it? JavaScript is just a terrible language. Actually, that's not really fair. It's a great little language for writing late-90s Dynamic HTML, maybe just a little too powerful. And that additional power enables people to build cathedrals of cruft in order to Get Things Done. I don't like Scheme (Lisp is IMHO better for real-world, non-academic work), but I still wonder how much things would have been if Eich had been allowed (or had chosen) to implement a small Scheme instead of JavaScript. The world of web software engineering would be so profoundly better. Maybe WebAssembly will save us all.
    - davidgrenier 11y ago
      Only comment worth up-voting I could find.
    - 91bananas 11y ago
      It's easy to say things like this. It's a lot harder to actually suck it up and live with what happened. Try to make progress, remember that's what all of the offenders in this story are trying to do. Whether or not it is perceived like that by the community.
    - WarDaft 11y ago
      There are already some quite advanced compilers that treat JavaScript itself as just a web assembly language, you don't technically have to wait for WebAssembly. TypeScript (some type safety) PureScript (Lots of type safety) and GHCJS (MOUNTAINS of type power) all work right now, though the latter is still experimental grade. But I don't think an initial choice of implementing a Scheme would have helped. The idea of +0 vs 0 vs -0 could just have easily happened in a Scheme, same too for the reliance on stringy types. Those are symptoms of a rushed design and an unwillingness to accept the temporary sharper pain of invalidating existing bad code to produce a new better standard (the exact same tendency - to dig in deeper rather than risk the pain of turning back - is literally how spies managed to convince people to commit treason). Then of course there's also the great risk that, just like Scheme not-in-the-browser, Scheme-in-the-browser might never have widely caught on.

by EdiX 11y ago

ShellfishMeme 11y ago

JS does not have an Integer type, so (x > 0) does not work. Now if you add all those checks necessary to see whether you're actually dealing with an integer here, you get to a point where you cannot be sure anymore whether there aren't any weird type coercion issues there and need to start writing tests. Suddenly your whole positive integer check took 1h to write and you still cannot be sure whether there's something you didn't think of. I'd rather use an external library for that that's properly unit tested.

EdiX 11y ago
JS does not have an Integer type, so (x > 0) does not work It depends on what the surrounding code actually does wheter (x > 0) works or not. Depending on the version of is-positive-integer you are using a positive instance of the class Number may return true, false or cause an error. PS. never mind that the implementation of is-positive-integer is extremely inefficient.
minitech 11y ago
A module doesn’t solve that kind of type confusion, though. Static typing does. The next best thing in JavaScript is passing consistent types of values to your functions, so just write function isPositiveInteger(x) { return x > 0 && Number.isInteger(x); } and always pass it a number. (Of course, this shouldn’t even be a function, because JavaScript is confused about the definition of “integer” – maybe you really want `x >>> 0 === x` – and apparently is-positive-integer is confused about the definition of “positive”, so it’ll be clearer to just put things inline.)
- wtbob 11y ago
  > A module doesn’t solve that kind of type confusion, though. Static typing does. That's the root of all the problems, though, isn't it? JavaScript is just a terrible language. Actually, that's not really fair. It's a great little language for writing late-90s Dynamic HTML, maybe just a little too powerful. And that additional power enables people to build cathedrals of cruft in order to Get Things Done. I don't like Scheme (Lisp is IMHO better for real-world, non-academic work), but I still wonder how much things would have been if Eich had been allowed (or had chosen) to implement a small Scheme instead of JavaScript. The world of web software engineering would be so profoundly better. Maybe WebAssembly will save us all.
  - davidgrenier 11y ago
    Only comment worth up-voting I could find.
  - 91bananas 11y ago
    It's easy to say things like this. It's a lot harder to actually suck it up and live with what happened. Try to make progress, remember that's what all of the offenders in this story are trying to do. Whether or not it is perceived like that by the community.
  - WarDaft 11y ago
    There are already some quite advanced compilers that treat JavaScript itself as just a web assembly language, you don't technically have to wait for WebAssembly. TypeScript (some type safety) PureScript (Lots of type safety) and GHCJS (MOUNTAINS of type power) all work right now, though the latter is still experimental grade. But I don't think an initial choice of implementing a Scheme would have helped. The idea of +0 vs 0 vs -0 could just have easily happened in a Scheme, same too for the reliance on stringy types. Those are symptoms of a rushed design and an unwillingness to accept the temporary sharper pain of invalidating existing bad code to produce a new better standard (the exact same tendency - to dig in deeper rather than risk the pain of turning back - is literally how spies managed to convince people to commit treason). Then of course there's also the great risk that, just like Scheme not-in-the-browser, Scheme-in-the-browser might never have widely caught on.