4 ms·

The author complains about having to type "items[items.length - 1]" a bunch but then shows how to implement last() and first() himself very easily via prototypi

The author complains about having to type "items[items.length - 1]" a bunch but then shows how to implement last() and first() himself very easily via prototyping 6 lines of code onto Array. So... what is the problem again? (a lot of the other stuff in the article is valid though)

ben336 12y ago
Extending a browser provided prototype shouldn't be done lightly. You certainly couldn't do something like that if you were writing a library, as you might conflict with somebody elses implementation of the same add on. There's also value in having things like this standardized. If its a common idiom, its worth including in the standard to allow people to use it without having to worry about what utility libraries they're including.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  I actually tend to think that this kind of shows the folly of single-dispatch OO in general (prototypical or not), in particular its focus on privileging the first parameter syntactically. The problem here is essentially that a freestanding function looks and thus (subjectively) "feels" different from a method. The syntax is obviously slightly different: "myArray.last()" vs. "last(myArray)". The latter stands out as slightly "alien" when compared to the other methods on Array. Why should the first parameter be privileged? Why isn't it possible to add a new method to, say, Array which is scoped to your lexical context? Even classic procedural programming didn't have this problem (as long as you don't need access to private data): Just add a function that does what you want and it'll look and behave just as the other functions on Array. EDIT: Maybe the focus shouldn't be on adding a few convenience methods here and there, but rather on making the language itself more "pliable" or "growable" as Steele would probably say.
  - jkrems 12y ago
    Nothing prevents you from using a function (`last(myArray)`). In a dynamically typed language what you are proposing makes only very limited sense.
    - lomnakkus 12y ago
      I'm not saying functions are bad or anything. They just "feel" wrong since they don't look like the built-ins. Regarding "dynamically typed": CLOS[1] got this right. Common Lisp is dynamically typed. In short: Dynamic/static typing has very little to do with this. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System
    - aikah 12y ago
      scoped monkey would be quite usefull? One could mess with prototypes yet keep them clean in the global scope. last(array) feels to much like C style OOP.
  - underwater 12y ago
    I agree. C# has this feature. They call them extension methods. They alive the scoping issue quite nicely: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
- esailija 12y ago
  They should just provide an operator like ::, then features that can be implemented without special language support don't need to bloat the spec. array::last() would mean same as last.call(array) that means `last` can just be a regular variable in scope
- thathonkey 12y ago
  All valid points but there are ways that you can implement prototypes safely (even in the presence of other utility frameworks that might implement their own version), or use one of the many other ways JavaScript provides you for.
acdha 12y ago
Not having to ever talk about it again. Not having to teach people that monkey-patching global prototypes is a good practice. Having a standard feature would encourage other array-like interfaces (e.g. NodeList) to add the same methods.

ben336 12y ago

Extending a browser provided prototype shouldn't be done lightly. You certainly couldn't do something like that if you were writing a library, as you might conflict with somebody elses implementation of the same add on. There's also value in having things like this standardized. If its a common idiom, its worth including in the standard to allow people to use it without having to worry about what utility libraries they're including.

lomnakkus 12y ago
I actually tend to think that this kind of shows the folly of single-dispatch OO in general (prototypical or not), in particular its focus on privileging the first parameter syntactically. The problem here is essentially that a freestanding function looks and thus (subjectively) "feels" different from a method. The syntax is obviously slightly different: "myArray.last()" vs. "last(myArray)". The latter stands out as slightly "alien" when compared to the other methods on Array. Why should the first parameter be privileged? Why isn't it possible to add a new method to, say, Array which is scoped to your lexical context? Even classic procedural programming didn't have this problem (as long as you don't need access to private data): Just add a function that does what you want and it'll look and behave just as the other functions on Array. EDIT: Maybe the focus shouldn't be on adding a few convenience methods here and there, but rather on making the language itself more "pliable" or "growable" as Steele would probably say.
- jkrems 12y ago
  Nothing prevents you from using a function (`last(myArray)`). In a dynamically typed language what you are proposing makes only very limited sense.
  - lomnakkus 12y ago
    I'm not saying functions are bad or anything. They just "feel" wrong since they don't look like the built-ins. Regarding "dynamically typed": CLOS[1] got this right. Common Lisp is dynamically typed. In short: Dynamic/static typing has very little to do with this. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System
  - aikah 12y ago
    scoped monkey would be quite usefull? One could mess with prototypes yet keep them clean in the global scope. last(array) feels to much like C style OOP.
- underwater 12y ago
  I agree. C# has this feature. They call them extension methods. They alive the scoping issue quite nicely: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
esailija 12y ago
They should just provide an operator like ::, then features that can be implemented without special language support don't need to bloat the spec. array::last() would mean same as last.call(array) that means `last` can just be a regular variable in scope
thathonkey 12y ago
All valid points but there are ways that you can implement prototypes safely (even in the presence of other utility frameworks that might implement their own version), or use one of the many other ways JavaScript provides you for.

acdha 12y ago

Not having to ever talk about it again. Not having to teach people that monkey-patching global prototypes is a good practice. Having a standard feature would encourage other array-like interfaces (e.g. NodeList) to add the same methods.