I started using this pattern years ago and haven't looked back. React components are defined using a single properties param and it feels natural to extend the practice to other methods and helper functions that I write.

One nice unexpected side effect is that I end up with more consistency in variable naming when using a param object in order to benefit from object definition shortcuts.

ie I will usually write something like

  const firstName = getFirstName(); doTheThing({ firstName });

rather than

  const fName = getFirstName(); doTheThing({ firstName: fName });

  function combineNames({ first, last }) {
    const fullName = `${first} ${last}`;
    return { fullName };
  }
  const { fullName } = combineNames({first: 'John', last: 'Doe' });

  type FullName = string;
  function combineName(first: string, last: string): FullName;

Not an expert in JS, but maybe this makes sense in JS where everything is passed as objects anyway and having a single param is often more readable there.

But in native languages like C/C++/etc, this pattern usually hurts performance. Separate arguments go into registers (faster but depends on number of arguments), while structs often involve indirection, and sometimes alignment/padding issues. Also, passing a const struct doesn’t guarantee the fields inside are truly const.

That said, it's context dependent. If you're passing stuff through multiple layers or want a more stable function signature, using a struct can be cleaner. Just not something I’d generalize to any language or any use case.

A little while ago I sketched some ideas for a programming language [1], one of which was that I would like a language who did not distinguish between these two cases. Obviously you can always write a function with a single N-param argument, but it's rather verbose, but would be nice to also be able to write the param list normally and then refer directly to its parameter type elsewhere. Although this would require that the "set of possible parameter lists" were the same as "the set of possible object type", which isn't the case in any language I know of.

[1] https://samkrit.ch/2025/03/09/programming-1.html#anonymous-t...

    def my_func(a: int, b: int):
        print(a+b)

    # both of these can be used
    my_func(1, 2)
    my_func(a=1, b=2)

    def my_func(a: int, b: int):
      ...

    def my_func2(args: my_func.__args_type__):
      ...

> No guessing. No worrying about the order. Your code is self-documenting. Plus, TypeScript gives you full autocompletion and type safety.

1. Most of the time, arguments are not the same type, so if you're using TypeScript, you're already getting errors at this point. In your example, only first/last names might get mixed up. And if you still get those wrong while writing that code, you're just phoning it in atp and maybe should take a day off.

2. The same TypeScript that checks your types, also lets you see the signature when hovering over the function.

In real world coding, this isn't an issue, and you'll probably give up keeping this "rule" after a year or two. But good that you're at least thinking about these kinds of things.

I agree that the example is easier to read with the single object param. It might be even easier to read using a fluent interface or a builder pattern. You should choose the best tool for the job.

As a counter-example, I prefer

    setEnabled(item, true);

to

    setEnabled({item: item, isEnabled: true});

"Avoid the Long Parameter List"

https://testing.googleblog.com/2024/05/avoid-long-parameter-...

Here is a case were object parameters aren't the better choice:

    type TBinarySearchParams<T> = {
        needle: T;
        haystack: [T];
    };

    const binarySearch = <T,>(args: TBinarySearchParams<T>) => { ... }

    binarySearch({needle: 42, haystack: [1,2,3]});

Or at least, I would argue they are not better, but if you still insist:

    type TIsEvenParams = {
        num: number;
    };

    const isEven = (args: TIsEvenParams) => { ... }

    isEven({num: 7});

Surely that is strictly worse?

It’s known as the parameter object pattern[0].

A draw back would be is you want to overload such a method with fewer parameters, it then becomes weird.

[0]: https://wiki.ralfbarkow.ch/view/parameter-object