It increases cognitive load when writing the function call, since you now need to remember what kind of true to use. It also increases cognitive load for people who either do already understand the parameters or who are doing something for which the parameters are not relevant; it's harder to ignore a long thing than to ignore a plain "true".
> It increases cognitive load when writing the function call, since you now need to remember what kind of true to use.
There is no "kind of true".
> It also increases cognitive load for people who either do already understand the parameters
By letting them see what the parameter they remember is? There's no cognitive load to seeing what you expect.
> or who are doing something for which the parameters are not relevant;
If the language doesn't have optional parameters, all parameters are relevant. By making parameters named, you avoid having to count positional parameters as in MS APIs to ensure you didn't get one in the wrong slot.
> it's harder to ignore a long thing than to ignore a plain "true".
Which is very much valuable. It's much easier to notice mistakes than when you've got 11 positional parameters of which 2/3rds are usually set to 0/null.
Jiro|3 years ago
masklinn|3 years ago
There is no "kind of true".
> It also increases cognitive load for people who either do already understand the parameters
By letting them see what the parameter they remember is? There's no cognitive load to seeing what you expect.
> or who are doing something for which the parameters are not relevant;
If the language doesn't have optional parameters, all parameters are relevant. By making parameters named, you avoid having to count positional parameters as in MS APIs to ensure you didn't get one in the wrong slot.
> it's harder to ignore a long thing than to ignore a plain "true".
Which is very much valuable. It's much easier to notice mistakes than when you've got 11 positional parameters of which 2/3rds are usually set to 0/null.