When any developer, whatever their programming language, sees a switch, they will rightfully expect an enumeration of non-overlapping cases. This assumption allows them to effectively communicate intent.
I'm not convinced that intent is so clearly carried by syntax and convention alone. Surrounding context counts for a lot, and can make or break the understanding of any chunk of isolated code. I think it's perfectly reasonable to permit out-of-usual syntax so long as you can see what's going on when zooming out a bit.
I'm also not too sure that the two C/C++ examples you gave are germane. JS doesn't have proper pointers, let alone the ability to abuse them for type-casting. It can't have interleaved syntax either. switch (true), fall-throughs, and omitting default: are all naturally permitted by the spec.
If you don't like them, drop an eslint rule and they won't even make it into a PR. Incidentally, I wonder if a marvel like InvSqrt would even exist if we had linters back then? 🤔
Totally agree: syntax alone won't convey all your intent. Like a calligrapher can still write absolute nonsense. The point was that switch(true)... actively hides the intent.
Now that, I can appreciate: the great artist-inventor's role is to experiment with the know rules (hey someone has to do it!) and build interesting and beautiful devices, some adopted right away, others understood only after 400 years :).
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.
I'm not convinced that intent is so clearly carried by syntax and convention alone. Surrounding context counts for a lot, and can make or break the understanding of any chunk of isolated code. I think it's perfectly reasonable to permit out-of-usual syntax so long as you can see what's going on when zooming out a bit.
I'm also not too sure that the two C/C++ examples you gave are germane. JS doesn't have proper pointers, let alone the ability to abuse them for type-casting. It can't have interleaved syntax either.
switch (true), fall-throughs, and omittingdefault:are all naturally permitted by the spec.If you don't like them, drop an
eslintrule and they won't even make it into a PR. Incidentally, I wonder if a marvel likeInvSqrtwould even exist if we had linters back then? 🤔Yup, I'm a hoot in code-reviews... luckily, I'm normally leading them. Just call me Leonardo of the PR
Totally agree: syntax alone won't convey all your intent. Like a calligrapher can still write absolute nonsense. The point was that
switch(true)...actively hides the intent.Now that, I can appreciate: the great artist-inventor's role is to experiment with the know rules (hey someone has to do it!) and build interesting and beautiful devices, some adopted right away, others understood only after 400 years :).