because the "unsafe" suffix conveys information to the reader, whereas `innherHTML` does not?
replyAny potential reader should be familiar with innerHTML.
replyRight. Like how any potential reader is familiar with the risks of sql injection which is why nothing has ever been hacked that way.
replyOr how any potential driver is familiar with seat belts which is why everybody wears them and nobody’s been thrown from a car since they were invented.
deleted
replyyes, and bugs shouldn't exist because everyone should be familiar with everything.
replyBut if some are marked unsafe and others are not it gives a false sense of security if something is not marked unsafe.
replySo we shouldn’t mark anything as unsafe then? And give no indication whatsoever?
replyThe issue isn’t that the word “safe” doesn’t appear in safe variants, it’s that “unsafe” makes your intentions clear: “I know this is unsafe, but it’s fine because of X and Y”.
Maybe we should add the word safe and consider everything else as unsafe
replyLike life, things should default to being safe. Unsafe, unexpected behaviours should be exception and thus require an exceptional name.
replyLegacy and backwards compatibility hampers this, but going forward…
Because then your linter won't be able to tell you when you're done migrating the calls that can be migrated.
replyBecause sooner or later it'll be removed.
replyNo because the web has to remain backwards compatible with older sites. This has always been the case.
replyAnd break millions of sites?
reply