Many times folks understand that values can be nullish. Libs like Lodash treat them as empty collections to avoid repetitive nullish check scaffolding.
61 karma · joined April 14, 2009
I think being explicit about the intent of your code is a good thing after all.
Lodash has plenty of comments (jsdoc, bug fix notes, and implementation explanations). Underscore has stripped many of these leading to devs making the same mistakes or introducing regressions.
Lodash docs are arranged in alphabetic order. Underscore docs aren't and even have thing miscategorized.
Where do you see a loss in quality?
and also provides per method packages (https://www.npmjs.com/browse/keyword/lodash-modularized)
like padStart (https://www.npmjs.com/package/lodash.padstart)
So upgrades are optional and not pulling the rug out from underneath the feet of devs.
Major releases allows the project to make corrections and avoid carrying around years of baggage.
Nothing was done in a way to pull the rug out from underneath folks.
As @sod pointed out the change is based on the newish ES7 proposal.
Lodash v2 was not but offered an lodash.underscore.js build.
Lodash v3 dropped the compat build in favor of using individual lodash modules until you're able to transition
Lodash v4 continues the view of v3
http://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=lodash
https://gist.github.com/anvaka/8e8fa57c7ee1350e3491/revision...
_.flow(_.range(0,10), _.map(_.add(2)), _.sum)();
//With slightly more magic
let {flow, range, map, add, sum} = _;
flow(range(0), map(add(2)), sum)(10);