I am Software Developer, currently interested in static type languages (TypeScript, Elm, ReScript) mostly in the frontend land, but working actively in Python also. I am available for mentoring.
Generally what you said is almost exactly what I tried to describe in the article. With this difference that I don't understand Kyle dislike for anonymous functions at all, his arguments like - if you have no clue how to name something, name it - todo, are for me just bizarre. And I am not joking, he is really proposing that in his book.
I vote here for commons sense, name things when it has sense to name them, and if you do, name them accurate. There is nothing worst then bad names.
JavaScript wrangler.
Check out my books!
Web API Cookbook:
https://www.amazon.com/Web-API-Cookbook-JavaScript-Applications/dp/1098150694
Modern CSS:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/148426293X
Generally what you said is almost exactly what I tried to describe in the article. With this difference that I don't understand Kyle dislike for anonymous functions at all, his arguments like - if you have no clue how to name something, name it - todo, are for me just bizarre. And I am not joking, he is really proposing that in his book.
I vote here for commons sense, name things when it has sense to name them, and if you do, name them accurate. There is nothing worst then bad names.
Thanks for the comment!
I think one of the main criticisms is that they just show up as
(anonymous)in a stack trace, so it might make debugging harder.Honestly, that's the only issue I can think of.