[WilliamLP]

> geolocator.getLatLng("Forest Park, St. Louis, MO", function(center) {

> displayMapAt(center, 14);

> });

To my eyes, that solution is just fine. I don't think I'll ever be swayed to believe that adding on layers of indirection to JavaScript code for the sake of "syntactic goodness" is rationally motivated by leading to more practical power for actually solving problems.

[ynniv]

Agreed. If you're writing something in a web browser, use sane JavaScript. Every time I have done something "fancy" with a language, there has been a large hidden cost later on, be that complicated debugging sessions, new hire training, or unintended side effects. Terrible syntax/rewriting hacks in Rails are probably what convinced me that I do not like ruby. If you truly care about programmer efficiency, you probably want to look into cross compilers like Objective-J or parenscript.

[cabalamat]

I agree. The beauty of software systems is they can be made as complex as the programmer can imagine; this is also the horror of software systems.

All software should be as complex as it needs to be to do the job, and no more so (where complex means the cognitive load necessary to understand it). Unfortunately 99% of programmers and 100% of programmers' managers don't understand this (both numbers are probably correct to the nearest integer, in my experience).

[cwp]

See also Clamato. http://clamato.net/

[mikeryan]

agree - imagine inheriting this code and then having to figure out what the underscore is doing. ugh.

Sometimes brevity isn't the right solution.