TBH, for consistency sake with everything else in JS, I'd call the method `delete`, since it's the one that returns `true` or `false` in pretty much every other case.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:54 AM Man Hoang <[email protected]> wrote: > ### With `Array.prototype.remove(item)` > > Code is clean and concise. > > ``` js > > if (array.remove(item)) { > > // [item] was removed, do something here. > > } > > ``` > > > > ### Without `Array.prototype.remove(item)` > > Code is verbose or duplicated (everyone has their own version of > `removeArrayItem`) => **WASTE**. > > ``` js > > // Using `indexOf` and `splice` directly. > > > > const i = array.indexOf(item); > > if (i >= 0) { > > array.splice(i, 1); > > // [item] was removed, do something here. > > } > > > > // Using a helper function. > > > > if (removeArrayItem(array, item)) { > > // [item] was removed, do something here. > > } > > ``` > > > > ### With `Set.prototype.add` returning a boolean > > Code is clean and concise. Together, `add` and `delete` are a perfect pair. > > ``` js > > if (set.add(item)) { > > // [item] was added, do something here. > > } > > > > if (set.delete(item)) { > > // [item] was deleted, do something here. > > } > > ``` > > > > ### With `Set.prototype.add` returning `this` (almost, if not always, > useless) > > Code is verbose or duplicated (everyone has their own version of > `addItemToSetIfAbsent`) => **WASTE**. > > ``` js > > // Using `has` and `add`. > > > > if (!set.has(item)) { > > set.add(item); > > // [item] was added, do something here. > > } > > > > // Using `size` and `add`. > > > > const oldSize = set.size; > > set.add(item); > > if (set.size > oldSize) { > > // [item] was added, do something here. > > } > > > > // Using a helper function. > > > > if (addItemToSetIfAbsent(set, item)) { > > // [item] was added, do something here. > > } > > ``` > > > > My point of view is JS and the web itself were not designed for app > development. They have constantly been hacked to do so. If they had been, > people wouldn’t have wasted too many resources creating workarounds (not > solutions, not technologies) such as jQuery, Ember, Knockout, Polymer, > Angular, React, Vue, GWT, CoffeeScript, TypeScript, and so on. No matter > how we change JS, its inherent problems remain because we cannot introduce > breaking changes. (Please do not argue about this as it will lead to > nowhere) > > > > Having said that, let's get back to the main point of this thread and this > whole website: **proposing ideas to make JS better (or less terrible)**. > For me, changes such as adding `Array.prototype.remove(item)` and modifying > `Set.prototype.add` to return a boolean may seem small but would have a > huge impact when multiplied by the number of usages. > > > > **One small improvement repeated many times makes a big improvement.** > > **Many small improvements combined make a big improvement.** > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
