Re:Applying NASA coding standards to JavaScript
by marrs on Thursday January 08, 2015 @09:56AM
(#8856597)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that you'll reduce complexity by avoiding jquery, underscore, and half of the built in API. This is the opposite of my experience.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Applying NASA coding standards to JavaScript
by debacle on Thursday January 08, 2015 @10:18AM
(#8856710)
Cyclomatic complexity is different from execution complexity.
Re:Applying NASA coding standards to JavaScript
by marrs on Thursday January 08, 2015 @10:50AM
(#8856879)
Implying that execution complexity is increased? Is a function not dynaically bound at the last moment anyway, regardless of how it is called? Where is the increased complexity?
Re:Applying NASA coding standards to JavaScript
by debacle on Thursday January 08, 2015 @10:56AM
(#8856917)
Yes. Every time you introduce a new library, the deterministic nature of a system is challenged. It's kind of a silly point, though - the browser itself introduces more execution complexity than any JavaScript library could.
Re:Applying NASA coding standards to JavaScript
by marrs on Thursday January 08, 2015 @11:42AM
(#8857177)
Oh, I see what you mean now. I was referring to those libraries as an example of a useful application of the pattern. My point was, if you disallow passing functions, you disallow those patterns.