Suggestion: Rename 'isDev' to 'isDevelopment'?

[af]

Suggestion: Rename 'isDev' to 'isDevelopment'?

[af]

We already support isDev, and removing that would require a major version bump for what is (IMO) a very minor feature. I don't think the migration would be worth upgrading for most people. So I think removing isDev is out.

I'm ok with adding an isDevelopment alias (and isProd to prevent things like #66). Having the duplicate properties is a minor annoyance but if it makes the library more convenient for folks I think it's worth it.

[SimenB]

I think that makes sense. Hasn't been too long since I was confused about it: #66

[rfgamaral]

Let me know if you'd rather I open a merge request :)

[af]

Personally I like that isDev is shorter, and has no loss of readability. However, the NODE_ENV convention is 'development' so I can see how this would be confusing. Maybe we should support both?

[SimenB]

It should either be isDev & isProd or isDevelopment & isProduction. Or all of them, of course 🙂 But having one short and one long is confusing

[rfgamaral]

I know most people prefer shorter naming but my personal opinion is that this is code, and it should be as readable and as clear as possible in conveying it's meaning. Thus my vote goes for isDevelopment and isProduction.

Also, it always look weird to have isDev, isProd and isTest (although less used). Two of them are diminutives, the other is the exact word. Again, no consistency.

Supporting all of them is the alternative and I'm not sure what to think of that. If it was my package, my code base, I would prefer to just support one mode, the longer one. But that's just me. In the end, it's your call :)

[SimenB]

My vote is adding both isDevelopment and isProd now so all is supported, and whenever the next major version comes out, remove the short ones. Not worth a major at this point, though

[rfgamaral]

Awesome. Thank guys.