- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:12:06 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14878 --- Comment #11 from Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org> 2011-11-22 06:12:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > Bitmasks are not a good user-facing API for JavaScript. Anecdotally, SproutCore > 1.x used bitmasks for some state management code in our data store API, and it > was one of the most confusing (and "weird") parts of that API. Can you say more? What were people confused about? If it's the botched C operator precedence heritage, that's informative -- that poisons the whole well. > Is there anything lost by simply using String literals for this purpose? As a > practitioner, I agree with Anne that constant/bitmask APIs are more annoying to > use, and don't seem to offer any obvious gain other than the emotional appeal > of cargo-culting a C best practice. Use cargo culting properly. There are no fake airplanes here, flags and bitwise operators work. The question is about usability, not sentiment or pre-scientific pattern-matching. /be -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 06:12:08 UTC