Does anybody else think that Array#includes(...) is a failure in naming? Every other core library I can think of right now (Java, C#, Kotlin...) calls it #contains(...). Except for JavaScript. I stumble upon that every time I need it, I have to look it up.
This proposal was formerly for Array.prototype.contains, but that name [is not web-compatible](https://esdiscuss.org/topic/having-a-non-enumerable-array-prototype-contains-may-not-be-web-compatible). Per the November 2014 TC39 meeting, the name of both String.prototype.contains and Array.prototype.contains was changed to includes to dodge that bullet.
... and every programmer ever since (who did not start out with JS as their first language) bites that very bullet that they were trying to dodge. Just because of one library? Hahaha, made my day, this is so very web-like.
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.
Does anybody else think that
Array#includes(...)is a failure in naming? Every other core library I can think of right now (Java, C#, Kotlin...) calls it#contains(...). Except for JavaScript. I stumble upon that every time I need it, I have to look it up.You can thank MooTools for that: github.com/tc39/Array.prototype.in...
... and every programmer ever since (who did not start out with JS as their first language) bites that very bullet that they were trying to dodge. Just because of one library? Hahaha, made my day, this is so very web-like.