I keep tripping over "true, false, true"

PaulKeeble

There is something to be said for the bitmasks that are so common in C, createUser(user, ADMIN | SENDMAIL); has a lot more clarity than createUser(user, true, false, true); I don't mind the object approach used here but its quite verbose in comparison even in Javascript. Having to name the variable and set whether its true or false is a lot more than needs to be done. Booleans in general have quite poor readibility and maintenance especially if a third possibility arrives.

uberman

Perhaps, jsdocs might help here.

bradrn

Also known as ‘boolean blindness‘: e.g. https://cs-syd.eu/posts/2016-07-24-overcoming-boolean-blindn...

trgn

named arguments are hacking object literals to provide additional readability. it's ok, but not for all code paths, they have a true overhead. problem is that these things start to become idee fixes in teams (all funcs should have named args!). ideally, this could be fixed in the language.

tyleo

In the last couple of years I’ve started using named parameters a bunch more across languages. I consider objects like this close to the JS version of a named parameter. I probably would have thrown “name” in myself so it’s one arg for the whole func. I feel like a goal with good code is localizing understanding even if it occasionally duplicates something like a parameter name.

kevsim

This is commonly referred to as "the boolean trap". You'll find lots of articles about it.

heyitsdaad

You answered your own question. Call with const isAdmin = true; . . . createUser(user, isAdmin, sendWelcomeEmail)

bcjdjsndon

Isn't this more an issue with typescript? Doesn't your ide give you the declaration if you hover over the call? > And I’ve seen real calls like this in production code: > updateSettings(user, true, false, true, false) Really? He wants named parameters on all function calls cos he's got a memory like a sieve? This is a long solved problem to me

rideontime

I was nodding along with the piece in the first half, then it repeated the same point five more times and I started to smell slop.

readthenotes1

Someone want to recreate Smalltalk...

edwcross

OCaml has had labeled arguments for decades, so I assumed other languages would have added something similar by now. In C-style, it would be like: createUser(user, ~isAdmin:true, ~sendWelcomeEmail:false) Even though in OCaml's functional style it is actually like this: createUser user ~isAdmin:true ~sendWelcomeEmail:false Using the fact that a variable named exactly like a labeled argument is automatically assigned to it, we can make the call more concise (especially if reusing existing variables): let isAdmin = true in let sendWelcomeEmail = false in createUser user ~isAdmin ~sendWelcomeEmail

esafak

Usable languages let you use named arguments foo(bar=zaz), and linters let you enforce their use for booleans. https://kotlinlang.org/docs/functions.html#named-arguments

tantalor

This one is a classic, Avoid the Long Parameter List https://testing.googleblog.com/2024/05/avoid-long-parameter-...

dematz

First, sentences like "Not because it’s complicated. Just because I have no idea what I’m looking at." and "Tiny interruption. Still annoying every time." fatigue me, it's like you have an editor who, no matter what the content is , tries to spice up your writing with lots of little punchy exclamations, not everything needs such emphasis Second, this may differ a bit from language to language, but maybe those booleans should not be a boolean: https://gleam.run/documentation/conventions-patterns-and-ant... for example isAdmin boolean could instead be a UserRole custom type, with variants Normal and Admin, which is easier to understand in the function call, and extendable with another Moderator (or whatever) variant

NooneAtAll3

> toggleMenu(true); That’s clear enough. the meaning is obvious so... it does toggle the menu? and toggleMenu(false) doesn't toggle it and keeps it as it is? or is it toggle extended menu vs toggle basic menu?

disillusionist

I've been using this pattern for the past couple years for the benefits the author mentions. In addition to that, it can help with overly complicated functions (which, ok, could probably be refactored) that have multiple optional arguments.

chickenimprint

I wonder whether a person prompted this slop and is somehow unaware of the existence of LSPs, or if it's entirely automated and the planning subagent hallucinated this being an issue for humans.

sph

AI;dr: keyword arguments would be great in all languages, not just Smalltalk Also, obviously bot/bought account.

Dwedit

This is where something like "const bool isAdmin = true, sendWelcomeEmail = false" helps. Now your literal values aren't in the function call arguments anymore, but instead their meaning is, you just need to look elsewhere (probably the line right above it) to find their values.

jchw

I don't remember where it was originally written, but Qt used to have a fantastic Qt Quarterly about API design that included "The Boolean Parameter Trap", which advised several potential solutions to this very problem. Of course, it was somewhat specific to C++ in what it recommended, but I find that many insights in Qt's API design are more broadly applicable than they may first appear. In this case one insight that stuck with me: it's often better to use an enumeration of two values over a boolean. And while searching for a reference, I found the original Qt Quarterly, archived here: https://doc.qt.io/archives/qq/qq13-apis.html - I am sure some of it is just hopelessly outdated, but the general insights probably still hold up. There's a probably-more-modern successor here on their wiki: https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles