and yet looking through code from the place you work I see something like this l...

goda90 · on Jan 20, 2023

You've confused method chaining and nesting. The proposal itself says that method chaining is easier to read, but limited in applicability, while it says deep nesting is hard to read. The argument against the proposal by the GP comments is that temporary variables make deep nesting easier to read and do it better than pipes would.

notdonspaulding · on Jan 20, 2023

Thanks for taking the time to look and reply.

In your first find, yes, your modification helps me understand that code much more quickly. Especially since I haven't looked at this code in several years.

In that case, patches welcome!

In your second case, as the sibling comment explained, I'm not opposed to chaining in all cases. But if the pipe operator is being proposed to deal with this situation, I'm saying the juice isn't worth the squeeze. New syntax in a language needs to pull its weight. What is this syntax adding that wasn't possible before? In this case, a big part of the proposal's claim is that this sequential processing/chaining is common (otherwise, why do we care?), confusing (the nested case I agree is hard-to-read, and so would be reluctant to write), or tedious (because coming up with temporary variable names is ostensibly hard).

I'm arguing against that last case. It's not that hard, it frequently improves the code, and if you find cases where that's not true (as you did with the `moment` example above) the pipe operator doesn't offer any additional clarity.

Put another way, if the pipe operator existed in JS, would you write that moment example as this?

    return moment(input)
      |> %.utc()
      |> %.format('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss');

And would you argue that it's a significant improvement to the expressiveness of the language that you did?

scotty79 · on Jan 20, 2023

|> is for functions the same thing that . is for methods

If you program in object oriented style then . is mostly all you need.

If you program in functional style you could really use |>

8note · on Jan 20, 2023

I like that the expected variable name has a typo.

Those typos leak out to calling code and it's hilarious when the typo is there 10 years later once all the original systems have been turned off

wruza · on Jan 20, 2023

fieldWithHashMarksUnesacped

The code removes all “#/“ (or just “#” if a slash isn’t there). After that it replaces slashes with dots. How on earth is that “hash marks unescaped”?