I like this article, it's very clear. Well done! The only comment I have are about the semantics around filter. To "filter" means to "remove", so I would think (or presume) that a filter is an exclusive filter and not an inclusive filter like you use it.
I know this all comes down to semantics, so I'm sure it's a matter of opinion, but when I read filter(isCat) I feel that it shouldn't contain cats.
Some dictionaries use "remove" in their definition but most define the verb filter as simply passing something through a filter (noun). As a verb, filter is most often followed by either "for" or "out" to make it clear. So even in the 1800's I think a gold miner would say he is using his mesh pan "to filter for gold".
I accept your explanation, and I fully understand it, albeit I don't agree. When working with computers, a filter means to take impurities out, e.g. a spam filter. So I do understand that this is due to dynamics of a language, but if it was in my code I'd be confused if I saw it used this way.
I think that the meaning of "filter" remains the same. And the concept we can apply in programming is filter removes the "impurities", keeping only the desirable data by passing the a parameter (the desirable condition).
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
This bothers me too.
The callback must return true to include the element in the resultant array, and if we were using filter to remove cats, then we'd need isCat to return false if the element was a cat or to rename it to isNotCat and make it keep returning true. That means either way we can't use that function in both filter and our own code without going insane.
Oh, and in response to your next comment (which for some reason dev.to doesn't let me reply to directly): we have an existing convention of referring to filters on search forms but what they include. If you go to Amazon and search for something, the filters aren't all like "do not include fish food in my results" because that would also be unsuitable for happy life.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I like this article, it's very clear. Well done! The only comment I have are about the semantics around
filter. To "filter" means to "remove", so I would think (or presume) that a filter is an exclusive filter and not an inclusive filter like you use it.I know this all comes down to semantics, so I'm sure it's a matter of opinion, but when I read
filter(isCat)I feel that it shouldn't contain cats.What is your opinion about this?
Some dictionaries use "remove" in their definition but most define the verb filter as simply passing something through a filter (noun). As a verb, filter is most often followed by either "for" or "out" to make it clear. So even in the 1800's I think a gold miner would say he is using his mesh pan "to filter for gold".
I accept your explanation, and I fully understand it, albeit I don't agree. When working with computers, a filter means to take impurities out, e.g. a spam filter. So I do understand that this is due to dynamics of a language, but if it was in my code I'd be confused if I saw it used this way.
But again, thanks for your comment :).
I think that the meaning of "filter" remains the same. And the concept we can apply in programming is filter removes the "impurities", keeping only the desirable data by passing the a parameter (the desirable condition).
I hear you, Joseph. I always had to stop and think about filter until I started thinking of it as a "WHERE" clause in SQL.
When I see
filter(isCat)I immediately think of it asWHERE isCat.This bothers me too.
The callback must return true to include the element in the resultant array, and if we were using filter to remove cats, then we'd need isCat to return false if the element was a cat or to rename it to isNotCat and make it keep returning true. That means either way we can't use that function in both filter and our own code without going insane.
Oh, and in response to your next comment (which for some reason dev.to doesn't let me reply to directly): we have an existing convention of referring to filters on search forms but what they include. If you go to Amazon and search for something, the filters aren't all like "do not include fish food in my results" because that would also be unsuitable for happy life.