Introducing Closure Tools

Post by jauderho » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 8:45 AM UTC

jeresig wrote: post #31

lpolovets wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another data point: I downloaded jquery-1.3.2.js and jquery-1.3.2.min.js from http://docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery#Current_Release > wc -c jquery-1.3.2.js 120763 > wc -c jquery-1.3.2.min.js 57254 > java -jar compiler.jar --js jquery-1.3.2.js | wc -c 55340 Using Google's compiler saves an additional 4% over the existing minified version (disclosure: I used to work for Google)

I definitely plan on switching jQuery over to using this compressor - excited by the output. However it appears as if it crashes when you push the latest nightlies of jQuery in. Not sure what's up with that.

Post by distortion » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 1:35 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #41

mjs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, is there any real different between a first-class function and a closure that closes over nothing? Is it possible for a language to support closures without first-class functions? How common is it to have first-class functions without closures? (I think Python sort of had this arrangement, but I think this is fixed now.)

Haskell does not semantically have closures at all, because functions have only their arguments -- no scope to close over. Lexically, there's where clauses to scope function definitions, but that gets desugared very early, and is really not the same thing at all anyway (the name binding is completely static).

Post by adriand » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 2:17 PM UTC

jriddycuz wrote: post #16

flatline wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Closure" being a general concept in programming, I always disliked the name "Clojure". Same thing as Google Chrome, everyone is now confused when you talk about browser chrome as a general thing.

I agree that "Clojure" is kinda a silly name, but what else are you gonna call it? I assume Henly wanted a name that conveyed its functional and/or Lisp roots, and the fact that it's on the JVM. Let's try some names using the usual JVM language conventions: JLisp works, but it's boring, and Jisp sounds kinda suspect. Parenjases is just silly. Or maybe LLBeans for "lazy lisp beans"...but that's just getting too cute.…

Post by micheles » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 2:48 PM UTC

andreyf wrote: post #33

mjs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, is there any real different between a first-class function and a closure that closes over nothing? Is it possible for a language to support closures without first-class functions? How common is it to have first-class functions without closures? (I think Python sort of had this arrangement, but I think this is fixed now.)

A closure is just a (function, bindings) pair, so Python certainly has closures. The problem with Python is that there is no syntax for assigning to variables declared in an arbitrary scope, because there are no explicit declarations. As far as I understand, implicit local variables are what causes the problems in Python, not anything about closures, really. This causes other problems, too, such as those PG described…

Post by gruseom » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:40 PM UTC

seiji wrote: post #48

lupin_sansei wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get concerned that these minimisers and js to js compilers will introduce subtle bugs and changes into the behaviour of my code. Is that concern warranted?

Closure advanced mode will absolutely screw with your code. Closure simple mode and YUI Compressor won't change the behavior of your code. They just rename completely encapsulated objects with shorter names and remove unnecessary semicolons.