On Oct 30, 3:00 am, Amit Agarwal lifea...@gmail.com wrote:
These are general programming puzzles. I am looking for tricky JS questions
which can't be answered without knowing internals of ECMAScript.
Code Golfing may be something to look at as well then. @p01 is
relatively notable in his
Are you simply looking for a prize to compete for, or some relatively
simple ES puzzles to wrangle with?
On Oct 29, 12:50 pm, Amit Agarwal lifea...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi JS Folks,
I was wondering if there is are programming contests for Javascript.
Specially for the ECMAScript, the language
I used to play around with ProjectEuler:
http://projecteuler.net/
Solutions are google-able in a variety of languages.
You could also take a look at rosettacode.org and see if you can fill
in some empty problems for JavaScript. Since other language solutions
are listed you won't be completely
On Oct 29, 2:41 pm, Jordan Harrison jorda...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure when and where it is best to check function parameters
for the correct type and valid input.
This question is almost always the source of a flame-war...
What kind of function parameter type checking do you do? Do you
function supportsStorage(){
var ls = window.localStorage;
return ls instanceof Object !isNaN(ls.length);
}
On Sep 22, 5:19 am, Anders Jönsson joensson.and...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On http://diveintohtml5.org/storage.html; they use the following code to
check for local storage support:
So a person is not allowed to review other people's code/library/book/
article? Only their own?
On May 21, 3:09 am, Asen Bozhilov asen.bozhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Via the JSMentors mailing list you can:
Discuss ECMA-262 standard
Discuss different implementations of ECMA-262
Discuss different
Its may be feasible to use XSL to validate. Since the XSD and the
document are both XML format. There are a number of articles on the
web describing the approach. Search for validate xml with xsl. It
may be terser than a pure JS approach.
On Apr 21, 7:47 am, Rocket yr.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm
slow is a relative term. It's slower, yes since its not something
that can generally be statically evaluated and compiled/JITed by the
browser.
less readable than the same code written with subscript notation.
That really depends on how you are using both.
evaled code is insecure. Maybe. If you
On Feb 23, 9:45 am, Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
wrote:
A new article written specially for Opera software:
JavaScript. Array extras in detail.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/javascript-array-extras-in-detail/
Related discussion on CLJS:
by the community for good or ill. The drum I'm beating is
that coding in a pattern ~vaguely~ similar to what you'd see in a
statically typed language does not have to take away from the
strengths of the language.
Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
Scott Sauyet wrote:
[ ... ] When I program
On small arrays it is irrelevant, on larger ones where the length is
greater than 5000 or so it can become noticeable.
var a = [];
a[10] = foo;
var d1 = new Date();
for(var i=0; i a.length; i++);
WScript.Echo(new Date() - d1 + ms); //34ms
d1 = new Date();
for(var j=0, len = a.length; j
On Feb 17, 8:04 am, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
As you or the OP
or anyone else creates something beyond trivial code you mentally have
some notion of types and contracts in your mind.
But the contracts I consider when programming in Java are very
On Feb 16, 7:40 am, Scott Sauyet scott.sau...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a long interesting discussion of such functions on cljs last
year.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/
thread/909ddea61f431a1a/
Too much noise-to-signal in that thread imo.
--
To
were migrating to any other platform/technology.
Johan
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO)
t...@thenewobjective.com wrote:
The bigger question is, beyond the hype what does node.js offer?
Jumping from C# to JavaScript for example isn't exactly a step up.
Same could
Looks like a code smell of bad design. If you have a Person object it
would be unnecessary to do member sniffing tests and literal
injections like this.
So instead of this:
var person = {address: {zip: 1234}},
person2 = {};
console.log(Person2 undefined: +
Person have a
getZip() method to encapsulate the null checking?
On Feb 15, 7:37 am, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
Looks like a code smell of bad design. If you have a Person object it
would be unnecessary to do member sniffing tests and literal
injections like
A language being static/dynamic isn't very relevant. Don't let crusty
languages like Java ruin your impression of type systems.
On Feb 11, 8:56 am, Adrian Olaru agol...@gmail.com wrote:
I think an alternative is always a good idea. Java is big,
is statically typed and it wasn't actually made
On Feb 4, 10:06 am, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I've never yet had to use new
Number() but there may yet be a scenario
[...]
If you want a consistent way to evaluate and enforce the type of
individual values through the instanceof operator, this would be the
approach to
On Feb 3, 6:38 am, Chris Heilmann code...@gmail.com wrote:
Well written, robust code that uses appropriate feature detection and
fall back strategies is not difficult to write.
That's why the web is full of that, right? If you write for yourself or
an app for your hairdresser, yes. If you
I've not read all of the ECMAScript specification document due to its
nature so I am a bit puzzled; are const part of the ECMAScript standard
or is it a Mozilla-specific extension as stated in the MDN doc?
const is a reserved word according to ECMAScript 5 spec under 7.6.1.2
If the later, a
I forgot to keep the attribution line for my last message. Trygve
Lie p...@trygve-lie.com
I'll just have to hope the Usenet nightstick stays in its glass
case
On Jan 21, 8:19 pm, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
I've not read all of the ECMAScript specification document
On Jan 16, 2:10 am, Peter van der Zee jsment...@qfox.nl wrote:
Can I just throw another variation in the mix?
new function(){ WScript.Echo(foo); };
[...]
Actually don't know what jslint thinks of this, but as a prominent member of
the community once said, jslint can suck it.
jslint calls
On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, Miller Medeiros lis...@millermedeiros.com wrote:
[...]
for me one of the biggest problems of JavaScript is that there is 1000 ways
of doing the same thing... that's why IDEs can't do automatic error check or
autocomplete properly and also the reason why books like
On Jan 16, 7:45 pm, Miller Medeiros lis...@millermedeiros.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:17 pm, Miller Medeiros lis...@millermedeiros.com wrote:
The same way that is way easier to create a XML parser than an HTML parser.
No, this analogy
On Jan 14, 9:15 pm, Joel Dart jd...@dyknow.com wrote:
Creating Number objects is pretty much useless. If you ever need an *object*
that stores a
number value, you can just create a custom object yourself and store the
number value as
a property - it's probably also better Object Oriented
#1 - function(){ WScript.Echo(foo) }();
#2 - (function(){ WScript.Echo(foo) }());
#3 - (function(){ WScript.Echo(foo) })();
#1 is an error. #2 and #3 both work.
If I type foo or if I type (foo) they are semantically the same
thing. same as if I type 1 vs (1), etc.
The fact that function(){}()
On Jan 2, 1:33 am, jemptymethod jemptymet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 1, 6:56 pm, RobG rg...@iinet.net.au wrote:
The use of $ may be Ok in ECMA-5, but it still grates with me. If you
want to be able to safely access private variables and objects, you
need privileged functions that are
From http://yuiblog.com/yuitheater/crockford-json.m4v the first few
seconds he mentions a Netscape employee using the idea in 1996.
On Jan 2, 7:47 am, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
I'm assuming you need some form of written proof vs. claims of JS
developers using it before
...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:48 pm, Michael Haufe (TNO) t...@thenewobjective.com
wrote:
Unless private variables contain some type of uber-secret personally
damning info, why not just use this?
Consider familiarizing yourself with the module pattern,
seehttp://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2007
On Dec 29, 1:25 am, Emeka emekami...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Is Prototype JavaScript's way of solving Expression Problem? [...]
The short answer is that Brendan Eich probably wasn't thinking about
it when he built the language in the 9 days he had available. The
longer answer is that yes it is
On Dec 24, 3:05 pm, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
I rather have it one way or the other. e.g.
makePoint(x, y);
- OR -
new Point(x, y);
I just don't like seeing any extra if/else in the code. I also don't
want to handle the case where somebody might be relying on an
On 23.12.2010 18:28, Joel Dart wrote:
new is a bad part primarily because of its dangerous potential for adding
global variables.
Specifically, using the previous example
function A(x) {
this.x = x;
}
A.prototype.foo = function () {
return this.x;
};
// and instance of
More accurately, the more type stable the code is, the easier it is
for the engine. In other words, don't reuse a variable that used to
hold a number and assign it an object, then a string, then a function,
etc
On Dec 19, 3:48 am, Szymon Piłkowski szymon.pilkow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
33 matches
Mail list logo
