I can eventually see this coming up on SO asking how to, "make this work. I copied it from the internet."
It will be tagged javascript and jquery. =(
How true hackers write JavaScript
131–140 of 342 posts
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#132any example on how to use this JS code?
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#133This is neat (how the up/downvote onclick handler sends the info to the server). new Image().src = el.href; Where href looks like this: vote?id=xxxxxxxx&how=up&auth=yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy&goto=item%3Fid%3Dzzzzzzzz#wwwwwwww
Is this a GET request? What if my browser wants to peek ahead on some links?
This would indeed be problematic :-) The up/down vote buttons are plain anchor elements.
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#134Criticisms and bizarre fawning over beauty that a couple of people have made aside, the one thing that bugs me the most is the inconsistent usage of ;
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#135It works... every criticism beyond that is just an argument about taste, although personally I think it's unnecessarily terse. I've written uglier code and gotten paid for it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And no doubt I've written single methods/functions that where uglier.
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems some of the one-liners are simply renaming JavaScript built-ins like forEach to aeach and slice to acut. Maybe this is to make it look more like the Lisp backend? But taken on its own it does not really improve readability.
No, it is because some array-like objects like node lists actually aren't Arrays and don't have those functions in their prototype.
this is why I usually go for something like const $ = (el) => [...document.querySelectorAll(el)]
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#137I don't understand why people are dissing this. It does what it's designed to do, and fills a specific need for one website. It's not there as a teaching aid, nor is it meant to be shared for other people to use elsewhere. Not everything has to be gold-standard code full of perfect variable names, extensive comments and good whitespacing. If you have a day job that isn't primarily writing code, and/or you are likely…
I believe there is a difference between gold-standard perfect code and just making "beginners mistakes". It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable. You might gain 1s for writting remEl instead of removeElement but you will loose more seconds in the future trying to remember what remEl stands for, or having to check wha…
> It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable.
No, it doesn't. Unless you're an absolute beginner, it takes you a couple of seconds to realize that in this codebase, "ev" (or "evt" or even "e") means "event". The same goes for "remEl". If that's consistent, then it's not a big deal at all.
Having less characters makes code more readable (or rather "scannable") as well, it's just another tradeoff.
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
It removes the brackets and the return keyword, const is in fact a constant but this not ES6 it is just doing a function expression instead a function declaration (you create a const variable and assign an anonymous function to it instead of using the keyword 'function') This is used for readability and to avoid hoisting that can be confusing.
Given that brackets and the return keyword (and the function keyword!) are core parts of functions (a scope and a value to return to the caller), I would argue that removing these key parts of a function makes it harder for someone not familiar with ES6 to see that it is a function. This reminds me of Ruby's return-the-last-evaluated-thing-in-a-function semantics (which sadly Rust copied). Having to type one extra wo…
> This reminds me of Ruby's return-the-last-evaluated-thing-in-a-function semantics (which sadly Rust copied). Having to type one extra word is not such a burden that you should add cognitive overhead each time someone not intimately familiar with the language has to read your code.
I think the concept of returning by default is fundamental enough that doing so or not is mostly a matter of what you're used to. If I'd started out with Elixir or Ruby I'd probably find it strange that I have to manually return stuff from a function.
Furthermore, at this point ES6 is common enough that knowing at least some of the core additions (among them arrow functions with their implicit return) should be something any front-ender knows.
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is a difference between gold-standard perfect code and just making "beginners mistakes". It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable. You might gain 1s for writting remEl instead of removeElement but you will loose more seconds in the future trying to remember what remEl stands for, or having to check wha…
> It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable. No, it doesn't. Unless you're an absolute beginner, it takes you a couple of seconds to realize that in this codebase, "ev" (or "evt" or even "e") means "event". The same goes for "remEl". If that's consistent, then it's not a big deal at all. Having less characters makes co…
>Having less characters makes code more readable (or rather "scannable") as well, it's just another tradeoff.
Only to a point, otherwise minified js would be more legible than plain source. It takes "a couple of seconds" to scan the codebase and find out what el or ev refer to, but it would take zero seconds if they were just called "event" or "element."[0] There's no gain in readability from shaving off one or two characters in that case. It just "feels" more efficient because it resembles the common style of lower level code.
[0]Assuming those aren't reserved words in javascript, I don't know.
Re: How true hackers write JavaScript
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is a difference between gold-standard perfect code and just making "beginners mistakes". It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable. You might gain 1s for writting remEl instead of removeElement but you will loose more seconds in the future trying to remember what remEl stands for, or having to check wha…
> It costs almost nothing more to write "event" instead of "ev" or "removeElement" instead of "remEl", but it makes the code much more readable. No, it doesn't. Unless you're an absolute beginner, it takes you a couple of seconds to realize that in this codebase, "ev" (or "evt" or even "e") means "event". The same goes for "remEl". If that's consistent, then it's not a big deal at all. Having less characters makes co…
Having anything take a couple of seconds more to read something is by definition making something less readable.
Okay so perhaps a couple of seconds doesn't matter. How many seconds does?