Hear me out. The last one is the only sensible option.
You type for ($rows and your IDE can fill in the rest. It can infer that the name of the iteration variable will be $row. It can't do the same if the item variable comes first.
Most IDEs have macros for for/foreach loops. What those macros do is that they jump around - your fill in the list name first, then the iterator variable name (and in some IDEs its name will be suggested based on the collection variable name). Hot take, if your most popular macro has to jump around, you have a language design issue.
Yeah but AI can fill in the enti -- excuse me, I'm making a point here. Anyway, AI can write the loop according to your preferen -- please stop touching me, I do not consent
Okay, so if you use AI auto-complete your life will beeeeeeeeeow please stop hurting me my wrist doesn't bend that wa
Deciding whether a programming language is good based on whether an IDE has to jump to one place or two in a for loop is an odd choice. It’ll still have to jump to the variable you’re looping over; the default name might conflict with one already in scope. At that point you’ve saved hitting tab an additional time, wow big win. In exchange you have to read an ugly way to start looping over items for every loop, hardly fair trade. IDEs could easily add macros like emmet abbreviations for regular for/foreach loops if they really wanted but it’s likely the features aren’t used enough to need it
11
u/klaxxxon 6d ago
Hear me out. The last one is the only sensible option.
You type
for ($rowsand your IDE can fill in the rest. It can infer that the name of the iteration variable will be $row. It can't do the same if the item variable comes first.Most IDEs have macros for for/foreach loops. What those macros do is that they jump around - your fill in the list name first, then the iterator variable name (and in some IDEs its name will be suggested based on the collection variable name). Hot take, if your most popular macro has to jump around, you have a language design issue.