10 ms·
While I can grant that it does seem to solve a lot of the same problems as underscore and lodash, this is just asking for confusion and complication down the ro
by 91bananas 12y ago
While I can grant that it does seem to solve a lot of the same problems as underscore and lodash, this is just asking for confusion and complication down the road. You shouldn't make a decision that makes things hard for people to deal with in the future if they choose to use your product. There is well established meaning now to $ and _ in js land, pick another identifier.
- maemilius 12y agoI'm not certain I understand how their use of _ is any different from Lo-dash or Underscore's use of the variable. Just because they're not first to the party doesn't mean they can't hop on the established semantics. Their use of _ actually made it easier for me to follow their examples.
- deif 12y agoI think that it's pretty reasonable for a similar library to use the same character if the syntax is similar. As an example, the Domtastic library copies the jQuery syntax literally, allowing an easy transition for new users. It also makes users aware that the library is likely to cover aspects of the other, so they should carefully consider if they really want to include the new one.
- random28345 12y agoI still think the collision with underscore and lodash is intentional and appropriate. It makes a statement saying, "this library is designed to supplant underscore. Do not use underscore and this library together".
- DiThi 12y ago> Do not use underscore and this library together Together in the same module. One can port one module at a time. It's what I do in my current job, each module can use a different set of technologies and we don't have to port everything at once.
- nailer 12y ago$ is used for doc.QS or doc.QSA pretty frequently these days