3 ms·

I'm not convinced that this guide is very good. On many of the issues the actual decision is punted in favor of "just make sure it's consistent". Well obvious

I'm not convinced that this guide is very good. On many of the issues the actual decision is punted in favor of "just make sure it's consistent". Well obviously, that's why there's a guide. The purpose is to lay down the law so everyone knows HOW to be consistent. Moreover, a few of the suggestions introduce serious performance issues, notably around iteration and the treatment of the `arguments` object. If you haven't yet, please do check out Petka Antonov's Optimization Killers [0]. [0]: https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird/wiki/Optimization-killers https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird/wiki/Optimization-k...

nailer 12y ago
It really depends on whether performance is an issue, and the cost of the optimisation. A common example: lodash searches function toString() with regexps as an optimisation technique, underscore doesn't. Both are correct, maintaining lodash requires knowledge of how and why the hack works, but OTOH lodash is faster. Maintaining underscore is cognitively simpler but the resulting code is slower.
- couchand 12y ago
  I'm all about making sure that code is optimized for humans first and computers second. Here is the specific remark I was referring to: Or even better, just use .forEach which doesn't have the same caveats as declaring functions in for loops. Blindly applying forEach is simply not the right answer here.
  - nailer 12y ago
    I'd suggest the opposite: forEach() is smaller that iterating over indexes and creates a scope by default which (although having overhead) will prevent a lot of common last-case-wins scenarios that frequently trap both new and experienced developers. Should we use a .forEach() for a 1 million item array? No. Performance would be a problem. For the typical use case of items like the demo [1, 2, 3]? Yes, this would be be simpler.

nailer 12y ago

It really depends on whether performance is an issue, and the cost of the optimisation. A common example: lodash searches function toString() with regexps as an optimisation technique, underscore doesn't. Both are correct, maintaining lodash requires knowledge of how and why the hack works, but OTOH lodash is faster. Maintaining underscore is cognitively simpler but the resulting code is slower.

couchand 12y ago
I'm all about making sure that code is optimized for humans first and computers second. Here is the specific remark I was referring to: Or even better, just use .forEach which doesn't have the same caveats as declaring functions in for loops. Blindly applying forEach is simply not the right answer here.
- nailer 12y ago
  I'd suggest the opposite: forEach() is smaller that iterating over indexes and creates a scope by default which (although having overhead) will prevent a lot of common last-case-wins scenarios that frequently trap both new and experienced developers. Should we use a .forEach() for a 1 million item array? No. Performance would be a problem. For the typical use case of items like the demo [1, 2, 3]? Yes, this would be be simpler.