Atom Shell is now Electron

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 1:27 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #25

spinlock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying you won't use Rails because it's written in Ruby and not C. Also, it's nice to work in a language that has the right features and not just all the features. I like CoffeeScript as much for what it doesn't have as for what it does have. I recently saw this piece of code: new Array(26) .map(function (item, index) { return String.fromCharCode(65 + index); }) as a "heads up" for map lovers. That's the…

const caps = new Array(26).map((item, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index)); It's not wrong. Could maybe be better though.

    const caps = new Array(26).map((item, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index));

    const caps = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ'.split('');

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 1:32 AM UTC

sambeau wrote: post #42

ars wrote: post #9

That's a seriously confusing name. I thought this was a physics story of some kind. Additionally it's also a bad name because it's impossible to google.

I had assumed this was something to do with Acorn Computers [1] whose first models were called Atom [2] and Electron [3]. Frankly I was disappointed I was looking forward to how someone could have combined these pieces of British computing history with some kind of modern shell. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Atom [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Electron

Post by spinlock » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 4:05 AM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #57

spinlock wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have pointed out, the semantics are pretty hard to deal with. But, it's the style that I think is the really bad part of this snippet. Why would you create an array of empty elements to iterate over just to grab the index? In CoffeeScript, however, the language guides you to this solution: [65..90].map (number) -> String.fromCharCode(number) where you're operating on the elements of your array and you don't…

> Why would you create an array of empty elements to iterate over just to grab the index? Because it's the shortest way to do it in that language. I think something like: [A-Z].reverse or: reverse([A-Z]) might even be better. Do you know of a language with that syntax?

    for (1 = 65; i