121–130 of 236 posts
> xs = ['10', '10', '10'] > xs.map(parseInt) [10, NaN, 2] Javascript is beautiful.
var xs = ['10', '10', '10'];
xs.map(function (str) {
return parseInt(str, 10);
});
> [10, 10, 10]
map callback params: (value, index, originalArray)
parseInt params: (string, radix)
He says several times that JavaScript succeeded in spite of being a bad language because it was the only choice. How come we're not all writing Java applets or Flash apps?
For those unfamiliar, Gary Bernhardt is the same guy who did the famous "Wat" talk on JavaScript: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
edit: nevermind, I clicked the download link. But I'm still wondering why the video's unplayable on the site.
http://unrealengine.com/html5 seems to have been purged from the internet (possibly due to this year's UE4 announcements?) and I can't find any mirrors anywhere.
Which is a shame, because that demo was how I used to prove to people that asm.js and the like were a Real Thing.
Where did you get the footage of Epic Citadel used in the talk? http://unrealengine.com/html5 seems to have been purged from the internet (possibly due to this year's UE4 announcements?) and I can't find any mirrors anywhere. Which is a shame, because that demo was how I used to prove to people that asm.js and the like were a Real Thing.
First, I very much love the material of the talk, and the idea of Metal. It's fascinating, really makes me think about the future. However, I also want to rave a bit about his presentation in general! That was very nicely delivered, for many reasons. His commitment to the story, of programming from the perspective in 2035, was excellent and in many cases subtle. His deadpan delivery really added to the humor; the fac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brendan Eich covered this subject at O'Reilly Fluent conference in 2012: http://youtu.be/Rj49rmc01Hs?t=5m7s
If by cover you mean he essentially shrugs and says "it was the 90s" and moves on to ES6.
This talk has convinced me that their next step will be attempting to reinvent computer engineering itself.
It's a pretty cool time to be alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems he took the Wat talk a little personally, but I'm not sure why he defends {} + [] by saying the first { is a statement... wat?
It's automating semicolon insertion. The browser translates {} + [] into {}; + [], so + [] === 0 too. {}; is undefined.
However, semicolon insertion is only triggered when there's a newline at a position where there would otherwise be a syntax error. Here, neither is the case: blocks don't have to be terminated by semicolon (so no syntax error), and there's no newline in the source code!