scopes and prototypes are indeed different. By 'similar' I meant that
they share an important quality in common, like two triangles are
similar if they have the same angles, irrespective of size or
rotation.
I agree, in other respects they are completely different, which is why
it's useful to hav
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Dominic Tarr wrote:
> prototype chains and closure scopes actually work in a precisely similar way.
>
>
This is egregiously incorrect. Before you give out advice, I beg you to read
the spec and actually understand the material.
>
> this gist gives
prototype chains and closure scopes actually work in a precisely similar way.
this gist gives some examples of identical structures created with
scopes and prototypes.
https://gist.github.com/2904285
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:34 AM, P. Douglas Reeder wrote:
> Use the style that your team find
Use the style that your team find most natural for the problem you're solving.
That will make it easier to fix bugs and add enhancements.
If profiling shows one part of your app is the bottleneck, consider rewriting
it.
Other problems may make other styles more appropriate.
--
Job Board: htt
I found recently Im doing something like this (untested) after looking
at bits of other people's code, SubStacks etc.. however this aint
without its problems, as this context inside the prototype methods
could be pointing elsewhere depending on how the fn is passed around
in the called code, hence
I agree, the point is more that if you're going to write OOP JS **with
inheritance**, then prototypes are nice because they are the standard
way. My point is NOT that "functional is terrible", it is that if what you
want is OO with inheritance, then please use the capabilities the language
prov
On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Rich Schiavi wrote:
>
>
> The claim to functional being "terrible" is one I question, since I've done
> some basic comparisons between a functional style versus prototype/new in
> node and seen nothing to indicate it's "terrible" to use functional style.
>
> (The
I agree with Nuno on this (but I'm a beginner).
I mostly do functional but often I find a places where i prefer an
object abstraction.
And I find that this is mostly the case of the node api, you will find like
a bunch of functions in "fs"... but then things like Stream or the
EventEmitter loo
>> What is your experience (and suggestions)?
Awesome. I'm an haskell geek and I love nodejs :)
It's great to code functional style, if you like it go for it.
SubStack mostly code functional style (hence I find his code very easy to
read), and so do I.
Check some code:
- http://github.com/s
Do functional style if you feel like it, OO if you feel like it.
It's your choice, nodejs lends itself to both.
A lot of good nodejs developers do OO. A lot of good nodejs developers do
functional style.
Ignore FUD, and all the benchmarks that consistently look at non
bottlenecks.
(If you are cr
Cool, yeah, that is what we are doing. Our tests against prototype showed
prototype was 5x faster, but in cases where classes/object were more "real
world" in style about a 1ms difference at most in creation time
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:30:07 AM UTC-7, Giovanni Giorgi wrote:
>
> Hi all
There is nothing wrong with not using the prototype and preferring a
functional style.
There is something wrong with using closure scope when you can use `this`
For example
function fooFactory(bar) {
return {
baz: function () { return bar }
}
}
function fooFactory(bar) {
ret
Anyone out there have any deep benchmarks to back up using prototype/new
over a functional style in Node/V8? And that it is a clear
performance/memory win??
Mixu's node book says:
http://book.mixu.net/ch6.html
"Don't construct by returning objects - use prototype and new"
The claim to fu
13 matches
Mail list logo
