|
Yeah, part of it is that I do find const foo = something()
.hoge()
.hige()
.hage();
better, sure, but not actually significantly harder to read than: let foo = something();
foo = foo.hoge();
foo = foo.hige();
foo = foo.hage();
But, while reading is more common than debugging, debugging a production app is often more important. I guess I am mostly thinking about web apps, because that is the area where I have mainly found the available debuggers lacking. Although they are getting better, I believe, I've frequently seen problems where they can't debug into some standard language feature because it's implemented in C++ native code, or they just don't expose the implicit temporary variables in a useful way.(I also often see similar-ish problems in languages where the debuggers just aren't that advanced, due to lack of popularity, or whatever.) Particularly with web apps, though, we often want to attach to the current production app for initial debugging instead of modifying the app and running it locally, usually because somebody has reported a bug that happens in production (but how to reproduce it locally is not yet clear). Alternatively stated, I guess, I believe readability is important, and maybe the "second most important thing", but nevertheless we should not prefer fancy/elegant code that feels nice to us to write and read, but makes debugging more difficult (with the prevailing debuggers) in any significant way. In an ideal world, a difference like the above wouldn't be harder to debug, in which case I would also prefer the first version. (And probably in the real world, the problems would be with async functions less conducive to the pithy hypothetical example. I'm a stalwart opponent of libraries like RxJs for the sole reason that you pay back with interest all of the gains you realized during development, the first time you have to debug something weird.) |