you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I do like your approach better. Why bother with "bind" when mere knowledge of the fundamentals of the language allow the same thing?

All I can figure is that there is a certain type of programmer who really likes using the dot operator and slows down a bit mentally when presented with anything other than a method call. I remember 10 years ago, something called a "fluent API" was all the rage, where you'd type chained function calls that kind of resembled natural language:

IReposityory r; tellThe().RepositoryFactory().ToMake().ARepository(RightFuckingNow).WithoutChangeTracking().AndCallIt(r);

A lot of devs apparently get a huge hard-on when presented with this cutesy syntax. I think these are the same devs who'd get off on using "bind" etc. in JavaScript.

[–]fschmidt[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Actually another thing I am doing to SCEditor is removing support for "fluent" calls which are just disgusting. I am calling my fork "SCEditor, Reactionary Edition".

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well there you go. Sounds like a solid project.

I despise any code where it looks like the author was just trying to show off.