- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:27:44 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14878 --- Comment #12 from Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> 2011-11-22 06:27:43 UTC --- Why are bitmasks superior to boolean properties? (In reply to comment #11) > (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 06:29:09 UTC