I am an architect for a software development team. I have built a sizeable warchest of web controls and tools for us using ASP.NET and JavaScript/jQuery.
Part of the toolkit is a functional equivalent to .NET's IEnumerable LINQ methods (where, select, etc.) for JavaScript arrays. I was surprised how simple these were to implement using the js prototype feature. My hope was that our devs could leverage their knowledge of LINQ seamlessly on the client side, and the results have been great so far.
There is just one snag, as I discovered today: there are already a handful of functionally identical methods as of JavaScript 1.6. They are filter, map, some, and every, corresponding to LINQ's where, select, any, and all methods, respectively.
They aren't supported by IE8 or earlier (which might explain why I had not heard about them), but it is trivial to provide an implementation so that they work cross-browser. Note that there are dozens of LINQ methods that do not have a native equivalent, such as sum, max, avg, groupBy, etc.
My question is this: how should my development team address this discrepancy? I think we have three options:
1 - Ignore the native JavaScript methods (or consume them internally in a pass through method) and use only the LINQ methods. Forbid the use of the native methods so that our codebase is self-consistent.
2 - Use the native JavaScript methods whenever applicable, and the LINQ methods when there is no equivalent.
3 - Allow either to be used.
I will suppose that most of the community will side with Option 2, as it is arguably more standards-compliant, but I feel it will be disorienting for devs to have to know that some functions are identical in JavaScript, while others have a different, arbitrary name. It really jacks up the cross-platform consistency we have achieved so far.
Which of these would you choose, and why? Is there another alternative I am not considering?
Bonus Question: jQuery has neither native functions nor LINQ functions. What method names should my jQuery extensions use?
I would opt for #1 out of the three you provided, because I value consistency, but also because it allows you to provide a fallback if the method is not natively available.
That's also similar to what Underscore.js does for some of its methods --- uses native implementation if available, otherwise resorts to its fallback implementation.