4 ms·

import { display, generate } from "facesjs"; // Generate a random face const face = generate(); // Display in a div with id "my-div-id" displa

import { display, generate } from "facesjs"; // Generate a random face const face = generate(); // Display in a div with id "my-div-id" display("my-div-id", face); Beautiful API.

xg15 3y ago
As beautiful as the faces.
- throwaway35777 3y ago
  The faces are amazing! I hope if he finds an artist they don't get changed too much. I absolutely am looking for an excuse to use faces.js somewhere.
  - rkagerer 3y ago
    It would be neat as a forum icon, if you got to pick one and tailor it.
  - streptomycin 3y ago
    (faces.js dev here) What you see now is already after another contributor came through and redid all my artwork. You don't want to know what it looked like back before then lol
    - exodust 3y ago
      Agree with throwaway, the faces look great. Thanks for this library, the amount of face detail options is really cool.
nox101 3y ago
No, that's poor API. If it wants to generate HTML it should return it's root element. Let's say I want to add a random face to every div with class "face". With this API have to generate ids. With an API that returns a root element it's trivial and it's not duplicating work (inserting elements into the DOM) that already exists. Taking a selector would not be much better because it would again be duplicating work and make it harder to customize usage. Taking a parent element for it to insert into would also be a poor API because it makes it harder to insert next to a sibling. A good API would be one of const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face); or const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face.domElement); or const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face.html()); // assumes it can render to something else too
- pc86 3y ago
  > Taking a parent element for it to insert into would also be a poor API because it makes it harder to insert next to a sibling. To extend the documentation example, wouldn't you just have "my-div-id-sibling" already and call display("my-div-id", face); display('my-div-id-sibling", someOtherFace); Like almost all discussions that use language like "good API" or "bad API" this seems to me entirely personal preference. Personally I find anything where I end up having to call appendChild() myself a bad API.
  - nox101 3y ago
    No, that would not be better. Consider document.querySelectorAll('classIWantFacesIn').forEach(elem => { const face = generate(); elem.id = `face-${crypto.randomUUID()}`; // this line should not be needed display(elem.id, face); }); With the current API I'm required to make ids and make sure they don't collide with other elements. Vs document.querySelectorAll('classIWantFacesIn').forEach(elem => { const face = generate(); elem.appendChild(face.domElement); }); Now, no id is needed. It's objectively a better API to not need the id.
    - streptomycin 3y ago
      (faces.js dev here) A nice thing about the current API is the face objects can be trivially serialized to JSON, which I need do in the application I originally wrote the library for. Also the `display` function works with a DOM element as the first argument too, in which case you don't need to make up an ID. That's how I use it. That being said, the API might not be perfect, but you should at least appreciate that it's been stable since v1 in 2015!
      - nox101 3y ago
        See other response this thread why passing in a DOM element is also not a good API. That said, I wouldn't have spoken up if someone hadn't claimed the API was good. Any one who makes a useful library that provides useful functionality people want is great! > it's been stable since v1 in 2015! That's awesome!

import { display, generate } from "facesjs"; // Generate a random face const face = generate(); // Display in a div with id "my-div-id" display("my-div-id", face); Beautiful API.

xg15 3y ago

As beautiful as the faces.

throwaway35777 3y ago
The faces are amazing! I hope if he finds an artist they don't get changed too much. I absolutely am looking for an excuse to use faces.js somewhere.
- rkagerer 3y ago
  It would be neat as a forum icon, if you got to pick one and tailor it.
- streptomycin 3y ago
  (faces.js dev here) What you see now is already after another contributor came through and redid all my artwork. You don't want to know what it looked like back before then lol
  - exodust 3y ago
    Agree with throwaway, the faces look great. Thanks for this library, the amount of face detail options is really cool.

nox101 3y ago

No, that's poor API. If it wants to generate HTML it should return it's root element. Let's say I want to add a random face to every div with class "face". With this API have to generate ids. With an API that returns a root element it's trivial and it's not duplicating work (inserting elements into the DOM) that already exists. Taking a selector would not be much better because it would again be duplicating work and make it harder to customize usage. Taking a parent element for it to insert into would also be a poor API because it makes it harder to insert next to a sibling. A good API would be one of const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face); or const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face.domElement); or const face = generate() someElem.appendChild(face.html()); // assumes it can render to something else too

pc86 3y ago
> Taking a parent element for it to insert into would also be a poor API because it makes it harder to insert next to a sibling. To extend the documentation example, wouldn't you just have "my-div-id-sibling" already and call display("my-div-id", face); display('my-div-id-sibling", someOtherFace); Like almost all discussions that use language like "good API" or "bad API" this seems to me entirely personal preference. Personally I find anything where I end up having to call appendChild() myself a bad API.
- nox101 3y ago
  No, that would not be better. Consider document.querySelectorAll('classIWantFacesIn').forEach(elem => { const face = generate(); elem.id = `face-${crypto.randomUUID()}`; // this line should not be needed display(elem.id, face); }); With the current API I'm required to make ids and make sure they don't collide with other elements. Vs document.querySelectorAll('classIWantFacesIn').forEach(elem => { const face = generate(); elem.appendChild(face.domElement); }); Now, no id is needed. It's objectively a better API to not need the id.
  - streptomycin 3y ago
    (faces.js dev here) A nice thing about the current API is the face objects can be trivially serialized to JSON, which I need do in the application I originally wrote the library for. Also the `display` function works with a DOM element as the first argument too, in which case you don't need to make up an ID. That's how I use it. That being said, the API might not be perfect, but you should at least appreciate that it's been stable since v1 in 2015!
    - nox101 3y ago
      See other response this thread why passing in a DOM element is also not a good API. That said, I wouldn't have spoken up if someone hadn't claimed the API was good. Any one who makes a useful library that provides useful functionality people want is great! > it's been stable since v1 in 2015! That's awesome!