Sometimes you want to be more specific. Instead of x % 2 == 0 you say isEven(x) and now you can read the code better. Of course, then you might want to get creative and check that the parameter of isEven is an integer number first and then others get creative and check is something is an integer with if (isEven(x) || isOdd(x))... =))
In the case you described it seems that you are going in the other direction. In fact having it written as if (!condition) throwSomething(...) is even more readable. I actually can't wait for having some metadata info in my language so I can do something like assertNotNull(x) with something like
function assertNotNull(x) {
if (x===null || x===undefined) {
throw new NullAssertError(metadata.parameters[0].name+' cannot be null');
}
}
Instead of going for a superfluous invariant function, I would go for specific and readable stuff like assertDateLargerThan and assertCustomerIsSatisfied and stuff like that. Surely you see I am a .NET developer, but that's my two cents :)
My conclusion is that I want to describe what I want to do, then make the code understand what I meant, rather than the other way around.
I kinda get your point! You think, that invariant is too generic and would prefer having a specific function for each use case to make code more readable.
It seems like a valid point to me, especially if we talk about the backend, where code doesn't need to be sent to the client and parsed on its side.
Thanks for adding value to the discussion 🙏🏻
It's so cool to communicate with experienced devs!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Sometimes you want to be more specific. Instead of x % 2 == 0 you say isEven(x) and now you can read the code better. Of course, then you might want to get creative and check that the parameter of isEven is an integer number first and then others get creative and check is something is an integer with if (isEven(x) || isOdd(x))... =))
In the case you described it seems that you are going in the other direction. In fact having it written as if (!condition) throwSomething(...) is even more readable. I actually can't wait for having some metadata info in my language so I can do something like assertNotNull(x) with something like
Instead of going for a superfluous invariant function, I would go for specific and readable stuff like assertDateLargerThan and assertCustomerIsSatisfied and stuff like that. Surely you see I am a .NET developer, but that's my two cents :)
My conclusion is that I want to describe what I want to do, then make the code understand what I meant, rather than the other way around.
I kinda get your point! You think, that
invariantis too generic and would prefer having a specific function for each use case to make code more readable.It seems like a valid point to me, especially if we talk about the backend, where code doesn't need to be sent to the client and parsed on its side.
Thanks for adding value to the discussion 🙏🏻
It's so cool to communicate with experienced devs!