There is something to be said for the bitmasks that are so common in C, createUser(user, ADMIN | SENDMAIL); has a lot more clarity than createUser(user, true, false, true);

I don't mind the object approach used here but its quite verbose in comparison even in Javascript. Having to name the variable and set whether its true or false is a lot more than needs to be done. Booleans in general have quite poor readibility and maintenance especially if a third possibility arrives.

Perhaps, jsdocs might help here.

Also known as ‘boolean blindness‘: e.g. https://cs-syd.eu/posts/2016-07-24-overcoming-boolean-blindn...

named arguments are hacking object literals to provide additional readability. it's ok, but not for all code paths, they have a true overhead. problem is that these things start to become idee fixes in teams (all funcs should have named args!). ideally, this could be fixed in the language.

In the last couple of years I’ve started using named parameters a bunch more across languages. I consider objects like this close to the JS version of a named parameter. I probably would have thrown “name” in myself so it’s one arg for the whole func.

I feel like a goal with good code is localizing understanding even if it occasionally duplicates something like a parameter name.

This is commonly referred to as "the boolean trap". You'll find lots of articles about it.

You answered your own question. Call with

const isAdmin = true; . . . createUser(user, isAdmin, sendWelcomeEmail)

Isn't this more an issue with typescript? Doesn't your ide give you the declaration if you hover over the call?

> And I’ve seen real calls like this in production code: > updateSettings(user, true, false, true, false)

Really? He wants named parameters on all function calls cos he's got a memory like a sieve? This is a long solved problem to me

I was nodding along with the piece in the first half, then it repeated the same point five more times and I started to smell slop.

Someone want to recreate Smalltalk...

OCaml has had labeled arguments for decades, so I assumed other languages would have added something similar by now. In C-style, it would be like:

  createUser(user, ~isAdmin:true, ~sendWelcomeEmail:false)

Even though in OCaml's functional style it is actually like this:

  createUser user ~isAdmin:true ~sendWelcomeEmail:false

Using the fact that a variable named exactly like a labeled argument is automatically assigned to it, we can make the call more concise (especially if reusing existing variables):

  let isAdmin = true in
  let sendWelcomeEmail = false in
  createUser user ~isAdmin ~sendWelcomeEmail

    > function foo({a, b, c}) {
    ... return {x: a, y: b, z: c};
    ... }
    undefined
    > foo({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3})
    { x: 1, y: 2, z: 3 }
    > const a = 'A', b = 'B', c = 'C';
    undefined
    > foo({a, b, c})
    { x: 'A', y: 'B', z: 'C' }
    >

Usable languages let you use named arguments foo(bar=zaz), and linters let you enforce their use for booleans.

https://kotlinlang.org/docs/functions.html#named-arguments

This one is a classic,

Avoid the Long Parameter List

https://testing.googleblog.com/2024/05/avoid-long-parameter-...

First, sentences like "Not because it’s complicated. Just because I have no idea what I’m looking at." and "Tiny interruption. Still annoying every time." fatigue me, it's like you have an editor who, no matter what the content is, tries to spice up your writing with lots of little punchy exclamations, not everything needs such emphasis

Second, this may differ a bit from language to language, but maybe those booleans should not be a boolean: https://gleam.run/documentation/conventions-patterns-and-ant... for example isAdmin boolean could instead be a UserRole custom type, with variants Normal and Admin, which is easier to understand in the function call, and extendable with another Moderator (or whatever) variant

> toggleMenu(true); That’s clear enough. the meaning is obvious

so... it does toggle the menu? and toggleMenu(false) doesn't toggle it and keeps it as it is?

or is it toggle extended menu vs toggle basic menu?

I've been using this pattern for the past couple years for the benefits the author mentions. In addition to that, it can help with overly complicated functions (which, ok, could probably be refactored) that have multiple optional arguments.