I agree
Methods should mean something and reflect what they actually do, not be given names cause they sound cool or whatever. I mean what the frig is "stringify" ? From: Sean McArthur [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 5:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Moo] Re: Native JSON encoding and decoding. Personally, I think Crockford should be shot for creating "stringify" and "parse". It's "encode" and "decode" in other languages, and that's what I would prefer to use in JavaScript too. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Garret Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: On Feb 15, 2:22 pm, Christoph Pojer <[email protected]> wrote: > or: fixed. I'm impressed that this issue has been addressed so quickly. I hate to be a complainer, but could I bring up one more thought? Throughout my libraries, rather than creating a new API I try as closely as possible to use the official API (e.g. W3C DOM) and, if one browser's implementation is lacking, adding the appropriate API to bring it up to the level of the official API. I had understood that this is the spirit of MooTools, too. I note that both IE and Firefox use JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify(): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2008/09/10/native-json-in-ie8.aspx http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2009/02/12/native-json-in-firefox-31/ That's not a standard, but it's as close as we're going to get at this point. Wouldn't it be best to migrate developers towards an emerging consensus and use the same method names? (Yes, "backwards- compatibility", "MooTools' implementation was there first", etc. I understand that.) Best, Garret
