3 ms·

Maddy 0.3.0, a functional object operations library

12 points by kitcambridge 15y ago

perfunctory 15y ago
> fold, inject, reduce What's up with all these aliases? Isn't one name enough?
- kitcambridge 15y ago
  Most of the additional aliases are taken directly from Ruby's `Enumerable` module (though both `fold` and `reduce` are common names for that function; not sure why Ruby called it `inject`), but I definitely agree. One name should be sufficient, especially with the availability of the API documentation.
noelwelsh 15y ago
Underscore.js is a relatively well-known library in the same space. What does Maddy give me that Underscore doesn't (other than correctly calling fold fold)?
- kitcambridge 15y ago
  They're not quite the same. Underscore is primarily for working with arrays and index-based collections, not objects. Furthermore, it doesn't normalize common iteration bugs, such as the JScript `[[DontEnum]]` bug, Safari 2 property shadowing bug, and inconsistent enumeration of the `prototype` and `constructor` properties. In short: Underscore is best, and far more efficient, if you're working with arrays; Maddy is best if you're working with objects.
  - skrebbel 15y ago
    Uhh. I use _.map and co with objects all the time. It works fine. I don't see how it is any different from Maddy.map. What did I miss? Also, if the major difference is bugfixes in iteration, why don't you just contribute to underscore?
    - kitcambridge 15y ago
      Normalizing `for...in` iteration in Underscore has actually been discussed before...the consensus was that it wasn't worthwhile to overload `_.each`, and that the use of objects as hashes in JavaScript was inherently broken. As such, Maddy was created to provide a consistent interface for working with objects, not arrays or array-like objects. You'll also notice that Maddy conforms to the functional pattern seen in other languages, rather than the generic pattern used in Underscore: the arguments to all iterator methods are `callback, [context], object`. This makes it easy to invoke `Maddy.curry` on a functional method, and then use an identical iterator function and optional context for multiple objects. This is one of the advantages of functional programming, and how Maddy distinguishes itself from other libraries. Secondly, Maddy implements other features apart from iterator functions, including deep equality and object serialization. These methods operate on cyclic structures, which I've yet to see fully supported in any other functional JavaScript library. I've contributed a patch to Underscore that adds support for cyclic structures to its `_.isEqual` method, but it's still in review, and will likely remain so for some time. Finally, while Maddy was philosophically inspired by Underscore, it isn't intended to replace or challenge it. You're free to continue using it as you prefer; I'm not suggesting that you replace Underscore with Maddy in your code. They are different libraries with different target audiences: Underscore is a general-purpose utility library, Maddy is a niche object operations library. In sum, it's simply another option for those wanting a more conventional functional programming library to work with objects.
      - skrebbel 15y ago
        Thanks for the in-depth answer. I'm clearly too noob to understand the "that the use of objects as hashes in JavaScript was inherently broken". I understand you disagree with this conclusion? Is there any URL to the discussion that I can read? And why do you disagree?

12 points by kitcambridge 15y ago

perfunctory 15y ago

> fold, inject, reduce What's up with all these aliases? Isn't one name enough?

kitcambridge 15y ago
Most of the additional aliases are taken directly from Ruby's `Enumerable` module (though both `fold` and `reduce` are common names for that function; not sure why Ruby called it `inject`), but I definitely agree. One name should be sufficient, especially with the availability of the API documentation.

noelwelsh 15y ago

Underscore.js is a relatively well-known library in the same space. What does Maddy give me that Underscore doesn't (other than correctly calling fold fold)?

kitcambridge 15y ago
They're not quite the same. Underscore is primarily for working with arrays and index-based collections, not objects. Furthermore, it doesn't normalize common iteration bugs, such as the JScript `[[DontEnum]]` bug, Safari 2 property shadowing bug, and inconsistent enumeration of the `prototype` and `constructor` properties. In short: Underscore is best, and far more efficient, if you're working with arrays; Maddy is best if you're working with objects.
- skrebbel 15y ago
  Uhh. I use _.map and co with objects all the time. It works fine. I don't see how it is any different from Maddy.map. What did I miss? Also, if the major difference is bugfixes in iteration, why don't you just contribute to underscore?
  - kitcambridge 15y ago
    Normalizing `for...in` iteration in Underscore has actually been discussed before...the consensus was that it wasn't worthwhile to overload `_.each`, and that the use of objects as hashes in JavaScript was inherently broken. As such, Maddy was created to provide a consistent interface for working with objects, not arrays or array-like objects. You'll also notice that Maddy conforms to the functional pattern seen in other languages, rather than the generic pattern used in Underscore: the arguments to all iterator methods are `callback, [context], object`. This makes it easy to invoke `Maddy.curry` on a functional method, and then use an identical iterator function and optional context for multiple objects. This is one of the advantages of functional programming, and how Maddy distinguishes itself from other libraries. Secondly, Maddy implements other features apart from iterator functions, including deep equality and object serialization. These methods operate on cyclic structures, which I've yet to see fully supported in any other functional JavaScript library. I've contributed a patch to Underscore that adds support for cyclic structures to its `_.isEqual` method, but it's still in review, and will likely remain so for some time. Finally, while Maddy was philosophically inspired by Underscore, it isn't intended to replace or challenge it. You're free to continue using it as you prefer; I'm not suggesting that you replace Underscore with Maddy in your code. They are different libraries with different target audiences: Underscore is a general-purpose utility library, Maddy is a niche object operations library. In sum, it's simply another option for those wanting a more conventional functional programming library to work with objects.
    - skrebbel 15y ago
      Thanks for the in-depth answer. I'm clearly too noob to understand the "that the use of objects as hashes in JavaScript was inherently broken". I understand you disagree with this conclusion? Is there any URL to the discussion that I can read? And why do you disagree?