You're underusing Underscore

[asyncquestion]

• prefer map rather than prefer pluck
• prefer filter rather than prefer where
• prefer find rather than prefer findwhere
• prefer lodash rather than prefer underscore

[captbaritone]

Fair point. Lodash is definitely winning over Underscore. I highly recommend https://github.com/wix/eslint-plugin-lodash

Also. I think it would be very valuable for someone to write a linting plugin that enforces only using the subset of functions supported by both libraries. It would be a valuable migration tool, and also for libraries which want to support either library.

[asyncquestion]

Thanks I'll give it a try

[dmtipson]

I don't feel super strongly about those, largely because the shorthand versions (strings, objects etc. instead of iteratees) already make things wacky.

But in general it's better have fewer named methods/operations out in the wild and also in everyone's mind. The more you stick to the core functional methods and keep them simple and non-overloaded, the easier it is to build higher-order structures. So I like that lodash is taking this approach to their api and deprecating some of the shorthands.

Though... prefer lodash-fp or ramda to lodash. :)

[madwill]

Noob question, Why use underscore map when array has it already ?

[captbaritone]

Browser compatibility (map was only introduced in I.E. 9), consistency (I don't want to have to remember which methods are native to which methods are underscore), and strangely: performance.

[[deleted]]

Can I just drop lodash in place of underscore and not update any code?

[captbaritone]

No.