3 ms·
Why have Json? We can always use binary to save a lot of space and bandwidth and the IDE will always compile it into plain text for us, why have underscore at t
by mattigames 2y ago
Why have Json? We can always use binary to save a lot of space and bandwidth and the IDE will always compile it into plain text for us, why have underscore at the beginning of private variables? We can let the IDE do that, we even have long named functions instead of single letter ones? Most IDEs can read the jsdocs and give us a long description of what every function does, and I could go on and on. At the end it's a balance and subjective preferences of what you want to be immediately visible or something a bit more obscure (e.g. when you move your mouse over a variable)
- throw10920 2y ago> Why have Json? We can always use binary to save a lot of space and bandwidth and the IDE will always compile it into plain text for us Yes, this is a great idea, and people would do it if there was widespread support for a binary structured format. The difference between this incredibly ignorant sarcasm and my point is that IDEs already support the thing that I'm suggesting. You can already hover over a method and it'll give you information about the types of the arguments and return values that are specific to the call site. > At the end it's a balance and subjective preferences ...and you completely missed the main point of my comment, which was not about what information to show, but avoiding duplication due to function coloring: > And, it absolutely should not require creating two identical function definitions to get around the function coloring problem