3 ms·
That seems a bit shallow. I’ve been Rubying for 10 years and have always preferred find_all over select. select turns up in other APIs having different meanings
by turboladen 9y ago
That seems a bit shallow. I’ve been Rubying for 10 years and have always preferred find_all over select. select turns up in other APIs having different meanings (thinking of IO specifically); find_all tells you exactly what it’s going to do. Just my opinion, of course.
- dkubb 9y agoFor me, it's always been select/reject/detect. Even though I know about find_all, it always seemed like the odd one out.
- odammit 9y agoUnrelated! I haven’t talked to you in years. I wrote some DM plugins back in the day. Hope you’re doing well! Are you working on any interesting open source projects?
- dkubb 9y agoI don't recognize your handle, but nice that you remember DataMapper! I'm doing really well, although I did kind of fall off OSS work as I got busier with kids and family stuff. I still hack on lots of different things, but nothing that I've been able to open source. I've been busy learning Haskell these days, although I tend to write Ruby for work.
- odammit 9y agoGlad all is well!
- fny 9y agoYou're forgetting the existence of `find` which easily justifies `find_all`
- pmontra 9y agoI always use select and I've been writing Ruby since 2006. I didn't even remember find_all exists. As a name select reflects what I want it to do, find_all much less (this is very subjective). Furthermore it's easier to type. Luckily we have both and everyone is happy.