So for instance, Could you, instead of this,
fs = require('fs');
fs.writeFile( ... );
Do this?
??? require('fs') ???;
writeFile( ... );
Asked
Active
Viewed 23 times
0
Roger Levy
- 105
- 1
- 1
- 9
-
Explicit namespace naming is such a huge improvement over implicit namespace imports that other languages such as Go have implemented their imports in a similar way (though in Go's case it's optional). Why would you want to go backwards 30 years? – slebetman Jun 28 '17 at 19:56
-
syntactical cleanliness. or minimalism. i know ahead of time there won't be any name collisions. – Roger Levy Jun 28 '17 at 19:58
-
Minimalism maybe but to me that's the exact opposite of syntactical cleanliness. – slebetman Jun 29 '17 at 02:44
-
Symbols and punctuation pile up and obscure the core of what you're trying to do, requiring more comments to compensate for it. I had enough; I'm transitioning to Coffeescript and couldn't be happier. Trying to maximize simplicity. If you keep your code small and simple enough so that you don't need to (always) rely on enforced namespace qualifiers ... it's an advantage. Trust me. To clarify more, I take the meaning of "code cleanliness" as literally as you can; fewer extraneous details = cleaner. Most people seem to consider "cleanliness" a synonym with "precision"... or "safety" – Roger Levy Jun 30 '17 at 03:20