9 ms·

While I hate css, sort of like js and hate html layout, a lot of the problems come from accessibility. In that, it's so accessible anyone can do "web". This mea

While I hate css, sort of like js and hate html layout, a lot of the problems come from accessibility. In that, it's so accessible anyone can do "web". This means you get non-engineers with no engineering background put into situations where thinking about things from an engineering perspective would really help and might produce actual workable solutions. Like wtf is this: https://www.npmjs.com/package/string.prototype.endswith https://www.npmjs.com/package/string.prototype.endswith https://www.npmjs.com/package/ensure-string-endswith https://www.npmjs.com/package/ensure-string-endswith str.slice, str.indexOf are standard lib. Adding another layer of complexity for basic string functions that could easily be done natively is very poor form. This kind of stuff happens all the time in the web world. There's a layer of "lack of competency" bootstrapped on top of what I would consider a non-intuitive base.

roblabla 10y ago
Errm... - "test".indexOf("st") == "test".length - "st".length - "test".enddWith("st") Am I the only one who thinks the second one is WAAAY more readable? And that's a COMMON function. Using the former is bringing complexity UP. Not to mention, endsWith is part of es2016 I believe. So this package is just a simple polyfill.
- EnigmaticLion 10y ago
  > "test".indexOf("st") == "test".length - "st".length I don't think this is a correct implementation of "endsWith". "testtest".indexOf("st") =/= "testtest".length - "st".length
  - roblabla 10y ago
    Good point. Should have been "test".substr("test".length - "st".length) === "st" Or is it substring? Might there be an off by one in there? Anyway, this kind of reflexion only proves my point. There's no reason to question what endsWith does, because it's obvious. It's the correct abstraction in many cases.
    - pablovidal85 10y ago
      Negative substr() already does the trick, I don't see the need for endsWith() at all. 'test'.substr(-'st'.length) === 'st'
      - roblabla 10y ago
        The thing is : 1. You need to know and understand obscure behavior of substr 2. This hides the programmer's true intent. What you want is to know if the string ends with 'st', not that "the 'st'.length last characters of the string is 'st'". Why make it harder on your fellow coworkers to understand what you mean ? If you only do this once, sure, maybe importing a whole module is overkill. But as you write it over and over again, in separate projects, having the code safely tucked away in a reusable module brings complexity down.
      - bartl 10y ago
        You can even do 'test'.match(/st$/) I don't see why people insist on doing all the low level shit themselves, and then still complain about "scalability" and "fitness for programming on the enterprise level".
- dbkaplun 10y ago
  - "test".match(/st$/)
mashlol 10y ago
I don't understand the problem with those modules. Just because you can do something one way, doesn't mean you shouldn't add an easier and better to understand way. The intention of `string.endsWith('Blah')` is easier to understand then `string.indexOf('Blah') === string.length - 4`. Java String has both `indexOf` and `startsWith`, do you think that is also problematic?
- jorblumesea 10y ago
  It's added complexity because it's not std lib. Importing an entire module just to accomplish something you could easily do with 1 line of code. I'm not arguing that javascript shouldn't have `startsWith`, just saying there's a large overhead associated for a relatively minor performance increase. Thus going back to the debate about proper engineering. Just my 2 cents, feel free to ignore :)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    Give it up. The JS kiddies had to rediscover vendoring. Something that's been a best practice since the 1970s.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    But it's not "An entire module", it could be as simple as one line. I know people like to go on about how every module increases complexity by some massive amount, and how you are relying on X number of other developers and systems that can break now, but the NPM/javascript way is the unix philosophy taken to the extreme. Lots of small modules, extremely easy to use and install, that all do one thing and do it well. There is no overhead to using a small module. It takes seconds to install, in some cases adds literally bytes to the output, and can take care of a lot of hidden complexity like defaulting to using the stdlib version if it exists, and being fully tested (because let's be honest, you aren't going to write 15 tests for a string-ends-with function). Also, it's not as simple as 1 line of code. Look at the String.prototype.endsWith library. Look at the edge cases it supports, look at the way it does the search to be efficient. your one-liner might seem to work on the surface, but when you use it in a .apply it might blow up, when you try to get it to run on IE8 for some reason nothing works, when you go to run it on a million strings, the whole system bogs down. There are benefits to using modules where someone has spent the time and effort finding and fixing those edge cases.
TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
String.prototype.endsWith is native [0], it was added as part of ES2015. If you're supporting older platforms, you need to polyfill it. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/endsWith https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
- jorblumesea 10y ago
  How well supported is ES6 across browsers? Chrome for sure. Not sure about FF or IE.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    You can transpile to ES5 if you've got compatibility issues. Not really a problem.
    - aredherring 10y ago
      Transpiling usually concerns syntax. Babel won't transpile .endsWith to a polyfill for you, hence the existence of that package
  - gildas 10y ago
    The support is quite good today, see https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/.

roblabla 10y ago

Errm... - "test".indexOf("st") == "test".length - "st".length - "test".enddWith("st") Am I the only one who thinks the second one is WAAAY more readable? And that's a COMMON function. Using the former is bringing complexity UP. Not to mention, endsWith is part of es2016 I believe. So this package is just a simple polyfill.

EnigmaticLion 10y ago
> "test".indexOf("st") == "test".length - "st".length I don't think this is a correct implementation of "endsWith". "testtest".indexOf("st") =/= "testtest".length - "st".length
- roblabla 10y ago
  Good point. Should have been "test".substr("test".length - "st".length) === "st" Or is it substring? Might there be an off by one in there? Anyway, this kind of reflexion only proves my point. There's no reason to question what endsWith does, because it's obvious. It's the correct abstraction in many cases.
  - pablovidal85 10y ago
    Negative substr() already does the trick, I don't see the need for endsWith() at all. 'test'.substr(-'st'.length) === 'st'
    - roblabla 10y ago
      The thing is : 1. You need to know and understand obscure behavior of substr 2. This hides the programmer's true intent. What you want is to know if the string ends with 'st', not that "the 'st'.length last characters of the string is 'st'". Why make it harder on your fellow coworkers to understand what you mean ? If you only do this once, sure, maybe importing a whole module is overkill. But as you write it over and over again, in separate projects, having the code safely tucked away in a reusable module brings complexity down.
    - bartl 10y ago
      You can even do 'test'.match(/st$/) I don't see why people insist on doing all the low level shit themselves, and then still complain about "scalability" and "fitness for programming on the enterprise level".
dbkaplun 10y ago
- "test".match(/st$/)

mashlol 10y ago

I don't understand the problem with those modules. Just because you can do something one way, doesn't mean you shouldn't add an easier and better to understand way. The intention of `string.endsWith('Blah')` is easier to understand then `string.indexOf('Blah') === string.length - 4`. Java String has both `indexOf` and `startsWith`, do you think that is also problematic?

jorblumesea 10y ago
It's added complexity because it's not std lib. Importing an entire module just to accomplish something you could easily do with 1 line of code. I'm not arguing that javascript shouldn't have `startsWith`, just saying there's a large overhead associated for a relatively minor performance increase. Thus going back to the debate about proper engineering. Just my 2 cents, feel free to ignore :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  Give it up. The JS kiddies had to rediscover vendoring. Something that's been a best practice since the 1970s.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  But it's not "An entire module", it could be as simple as one line. I know people like to go on about how every module increases complexity by some massive amount, and how you are relying on X number of other developers and systems that can break now, but the NPM/javascript way is the unix philosophy taken to the extreme. Lots of small modules, extremely easy to use and install, that all do one thing and do it well. There is no overhead to using a small module. It takes seconds to install, in some cases adds literally bytes to the output, and can take care of a lot of hidden complexity like defaulting to using the stdlib version if it exists, and being fully tested (because let's be honest, you aren't going to write 15 tests for a string-ends-with function). Also, it's not as simple as 1 line of code. Look at the String.prototype.endsWith library. Look at the edge cases it supports, look at the way it does the search to be efficient. your one-liner might seem to work on the surface, but when you use it in a .apply it might blow up, when you try to get it to run on IE8 for some reason nothing works, when you go to run it on a million strings, the whole system bogs down. There are benefits to using modules where someone has spent the time and effort finding and fixing those edge cases.

TheAceOfHearts 10y ago

String.prototype.endsWith is native [0], it was added as part of ES2015. If you're supporting older platforms, you need to polyfill it. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/endsWith https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

jorblumesea 10y ago
How well supported is ES6 across browsers? Chrome for sure. Not sure about FF or IE.
- astrodust 10y ago
  You can transpile to ES5 if you've got compatibility issues. Not really a problem.
  - aredherring 10y ago
    Transpiling usually concerns syntax. Babel won't transpile .endsWith to a polyfill for you, hence the existence of that package
- gildas 10y ago
  The support is quite good today, see https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/.