Apparently, they think about standardizing __ptoto__ too.
Sent from my smartphone.
On Sep 27, 2011 8:14 PM, "Xavier MONTILLET" wrote:
> Btw, they're speaking of adding an new proto operator <| that could be
> used with an object before and a litteral after and it would set the
> litteral's protot
(function(){
//code
})();
is the module pattern and is widely used.
If you assign the result to a variable, there is no problem:
var result = (function(){
//code
})();
But if you don't, since files are often gathered for perfomance, if a
file with something like that is before yours:
(f
Hi Pete
The two are in fact !function(){}() and (function(){})()
The first can be used where your immediately invoked function expression
doesn't return anything
However the second can be used when you do with to return a value.
Ben Alman's article may help you more.
http://benalman.com/news/2
Hi,
could anyone explain me the difference in using "!" or ";" in front of
"function() {}();"
thanks
pete
//seen at
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/blob/master/js/bootstrap-alerts.js
!function( $ ){
}( window.jQuery || window.ender );
//seen at https://github.com/madrobby
Btw, they're speaking of adding an new proto operator <| that could be
used with an object before and a litteral after and it would set the
litteral's prototype to the object.
The problem with __proto__ is performance so <| will only work at
object creation. You can't change the prototype of an exi
On 27 September 2011 17:25, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Also, when doing pure object-based design, you have to keep your categories
> clear. Your Human and Man objects are clearly prototype objects, not
> instance objects. They are meant to be inherited, not used directly. The
> object you create w
According to this benchmark Object.create() is ~10 times slower than
constructor functions on Chrome:
http://jsperf.com/object-create-vs-crockford-vs-jorge-vs-constructor/26
Will an average app written with Object.create() be noticeably slower
than the same app implemented with constructor functio
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Jarek Foksa wrote:
> After some searching on the web, I stubled upon this message by
> Brendan Eich:
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-February/012893.html
>
> Why does he want to remove __proto__ from Spidermonkey? I would rather
> expect an ef
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jan Frühwacht wrote:
> So indexing just moves the processing time to the beginning instead of
> runtime object resolution and creates the flattest hierachy.
> Is that right ?
>
Pretty much. I wouldn't say it *moves* the processing time to the beginning
-- indexin
So indexing just moves the processing time to the beginning instead of
runtime object resolution and creates the flattest hierachy.
Is that right ?
2011/9/20 Rey Bango
> Very cool. Thanks! :D
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:55 AM,
How about this code, it uses Object.extend() instead of __proto__ for
creating inheritance chain as described here:
http://yehudakatz.com/2011/08/12/understanding-prototypes-in-javascript/
Looks pretty clean, though I'm not sure whether iterating over object
properties won't slow down the code. Co
After some searching on the web, I stubled upon this message by
Brendan Eich:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-February/012893.html
Why does he want to remove __proto__ from Spidermonkey? I would rather
expect an effort to standarize this useful property. Is there any
standard r
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Jarek Foksa wrote:
> Why nobody does the inheritance like in the sample code below? Besides
> the fact that __proto__ is non-standard and Object.create() is pretty
> new, is there anything wrong with this code? For some reason it feels
Besides that, nope.
- peter
I'm a bit confused about what is the right way to write object
oriented code in JS. The majority of the projects
on the web are using constructor functions coupled with prototypes,
but I don't really understand why.
Why nobody does the inheritance like in the sample code below? Besides
the fact th
I would disagree with few things you mentioned. But sticking to the
point, we are not talking about one DOM api, but all others like
insertBefore and replaceChild.
It is obvious that HTMLBodyElement extends HTMLElement and that
inherits Element (and that inherits Object). The obvious
implementatio
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Cheney, Austin <
austin.che...@travelocity.com> wrote:
> No, appendChild is a DOM property that adds a pointer from one DOM node, a
> parent, to another DOM node, a child. While a DOM node is represented in
> JavaScript as an object literal pointers, however, are
16 matches
Mail list logo
