4 ms·

Consistency has nothing to do with it. In jQuery you could just as well do: $.find('.foo').find('.bar') It's just a different way of invoking it. The shor

by aleem 11y ago

Consistency has nothing to do with it. In jQuery you could just as well do: $.find('.foo').find('.bar') It's just a different way of invoking it. The short-hand is more convenient since it accepts a selector as well as a plain DOM node and converts that to a jQuery elements. This makes things very easy and idiomatic.

rubiquity 11y ago
Yeah but jQuery's find (and a ton of its other APIs) are so drastically different than any other programming language/library. `find` in just about any other language returns the first encounter of an item in a set, as opposed to jQuery's `find` which returns all matches in a set. And don't even get me started on how jQuery hijacks `this` in callbacks...
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  jQuery's find is almost certainly more useful that way though, if not optimally named. I can't understand though why you would claim to dislike jQuery providing you a useful 'this'. You prefer to receive the window object?
  - rubiquity 11y ago
    > jQuery's find is almost certainly more useful that way though, if not optimally named. Useful but poorly named isn't useful. > I can't understand though why you would claim to dislike jQuery providing you a useful 'this'. I prefer programming language libraries to work according to the semantics of the underlying programming language. Is that so wrong?
    - juliangregorian 11y ago
      Come off it. JavaScript's 'this' is meant to be usable in such a manner. http://es5.github.io/#x15.3.4.3 http://es5.github.io/#x15.3.4.3
      - rubiquity 11y ago
        Using bind like that is perfectly fine in application code but I consider that a big violation of Principle of Least Surprise in library code. Nearly every programming language in existence has some feature(s) that you can shoot yourself in the foot with. Does that mean you should do it?
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        It's pretty standard practice for JavaScript libs. How much do you actually use JavaScript?

by aleem 11y ago

rubiquity 11y ago

Yeah but jQuery's find (and a ton of its other APIs) are so drastically different than any other programming language/library. `find` in just about any other language returns the first encounter of an item in a set, as opposed to jQuery's `find` which returns all matches in a set. And don't even get me started on how jQuery hijacks `this` in callbacks...

juliangregorian 11y ago
jQuery's find is almost certainly more useful that way though, if not optimally named. I can't understand though why you would claim to dislike jQuery providing you a useful 'this'. You prefer to receive the window object?
- rubiquity 11y ago
  > jQuery's find is almost certainly more useful that way though, if not optimally named. Useful but poorly named isn't useful. > I can't understand though why you would claim to dislike jQuery providing you a useful 'this'. I prefer programming language libraries to work according to the semantics of the underlying programming language. Is that so wrong?
  - juliangregorian 11y ago
    Come off it. JavaScript's 'this' is meant to be usable in such a manner. http://es5.github.io/#x15.3.4.3 http://es5.github.io/#x15.3.4.3
    - rubiquity 11y ago
      Using bind like that is perfectly fine in application code but I consider that a big violation of Principle of Least Surprise in library code. Nearly every programming language in existence has some feature(s) that you can shoot yourself in the foot with. Does that mean you should do it?
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        It's pretty standard practice for JavaScript libs. How much do you actually use JavaScript?