Should String.prototype.split accept variable arguments optionally?

Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum inglor at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 13:25:20 PDT 2013


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?

This proposal does not break anything, the only thing that will/might work
differently is people passing an array to .split right now and expecting
something like splitting on `firstElem,secondElem...`. Current usages of
.`split` with a string or with a regular expression will continue to
function exactly the same, the only thing happening here is adding an
overload for an array.

> Non "highly trained professionals" should be simple things or try to
learn something new that won't hurt... so please make it simpler"

If we can make life the easier without breaking anything, why not? A lot of
people use JavaScript on the web in practice for making websites dynamic,
most of those people are not me and certainly not you but they're still
probably the majority. How many so called ""jQuery programmers"" are there?

I'm not sure taking a common use case like `.split` on multiple delimiters
and removing a skill (Regular Expressions) they had to know before in order
to write code they understand and by that making the language more
accessible to them is not a good idea.

There are and have been such API changes in the language. Why have
`str.contains` if you can just do `~str.indexOf`. Why have `.startsWith`,
or `.indexOf` on arrays?

I'm not saying we _should_ add a `.split` third overload in addition to the
already existing two. I do however think it is an interesting idea that in
practice a lot of developers, especially ones who do not remember the
abstract comparison algorithm by heart can possibly benefit from.

Are you against changes like `.contains` or `.startsWith` too? What do you
think is the criterea for such additions to the language?

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> It's hard to add extra optional arguments to a long-standing built-in.
People write code that passes an extra arg that has been ignored till the
change; browsers that try shipping the new version then break that content,
user blames browser (rightly so) but also the page, sometimes (not right).

Agreed. Even without compatibility issues, I get confused questions from
students regarding the behavior of methods changing behavior based on
number of arguments (`Array` for example) way more often than I'd expect.
(and props on the spec, being able to send students there in such cases is
extremely enabling imo and a great exercise on its own).

What about the version with the overload accepting an Array instead? It
seems more backwards compatible than the varargs version.

Regexps suck away oxygen too, as others note. My suggestion is to focus
> fire for greater effect. If we need a new variable-split, we want a new API.
>

I actually like the existing API for the most part and just wish it made
life easier at times. Especially for learners. I'd like to teach my nephew
JavaScript as a first language and I don't want to go anywhere near regular
expressions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131016/7ba9eefc/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list