We will not be changing Moment's API to be immutable.We will not be adding new features or capabilities.We now generally consider Moment to be a legacy project in maintenance mode. We would also like to promote the Temporal addition to the JavaScript language, which is looking for feedback and contributors. Instead, we would like to recommend alternatives that are excellent choices for use in modern applications today. We recognize that many existing projects may continue to use Moment, but we would like to discourage Moment from being used in new projects going forward. The Moment team has discussed these issues at length. 4 alternatives to moment.js for internationalizing dates.You Probably Don't Need Moment.js Anymore.Recently, Chrome Dev Tools started showing recommendations for replacing Moment for the size alone. Libraries like Luxon (and others) take advantage of this, reducing or removing the need to ship your own data files.
Modern web browsers (and Node.js) expose internationalization and time zone support via the Intl object, codified as ECMA-402. If one needs internationalization or time zone support, Moment can get quite large. Moment doesn't work well with modern "tree shaking" algorithms, so it tends to increase the size of web application bundles.
Since this has already been accomplished in other libraries, we feel that it is more important to retain the mutable API.Īnother common argument against using Moment in modern applications is its size. We address it in our usage guidance but it still comes as a surprise to most new users.Ĭhanging Moment to be immutable would be a breaking change for every one of the projects that use it.Ĭreating a "Moment v3" that was immutable would be a tremendous undertaking and would make Moment a different library entirely. This is a common source of complaints about Moment. Given how many projects depend on it, we choose to prioritize stability over new features.Īs an example, consider that Moment objects are mutable. Moment has evolved somewhat over the years, but it has essentially the same design as it did when it was created in 2011. The modern web looks much different these days. And that's what programing is about: building abstractions to reduce has been successfully used in millions of projects, and we are happy to have contributed to making date and time better on the web.Īs of September 2020, Moment gets over 12 million downloads per week! However, Moment was built for the previous era of the JavaScript ecosystem. Of course, one abstraction does not make much difference, but dozens of them change the way a whole program describes what it's doing. The steps followed are conceptually the same, yes, but the use of a widely known generic abstraction like reduce/ inject has reduced the overall complexity. (numbers.drop 1).inject(numbers) -> xs.inject(initial, :method)įor me, simply moving logic isn't a new style per se, and so conceptually this is nothing new to me. Here is my latest version: def subtract *numbers Trying to use a more Ruby-esque style, I thought it would be better to use some of Array's methods. invoking subtract(0, 0, 0, 0, -10) should return 10Ĭoming from a traditional imperative programming background (C, Lua, Java, etc.), my first attempt would have been something like this: def subtract *numbersīut, this just felt wrong in Ruby, and I don't doubt that it is.invoking subtract(-10, 2, 3) should return -15.invoking subtract(4, 5) should return -1.I'm currently following the tutorials over at RubyMonk, and one of the problems I need to solve is to write a subtract function that would meet these conditions:
0 kommentar(er)
