31–40 of 123 posts
It's too bad that people were willing to ostracize Brendan Eich for not being a cookie-cutter silly-valley progressive. Oculus is facing that now. It's the new mccarthyism.
;-)
It's too bad that people were willing to ostracize Brendan Eich for not being a cookie-cutter silly-valley progressive. Oculus is facing that now. It's the new mccarthyism.
It's too bad that people were willing to ostracize Brendan Eich for not being a cookie-cutter silly-valley progressive. Oculus is facing that now. It's the new mccarthyism.
For what it's worth, Brendan Eich is a joke for technical reasons as well, like creating JavaScript.
It's too bad that people were willing to ostracize Brendan Eich for not being a cookie-cutter silly-valley progressive. Oculus is facing that now. It's the new mccarthyism.
For what it's worth, Brendan Eich is a joke for technical reasons as well, like creating JavaScript.
-> {anything goes here}
or
->(a,b,c) {anything goes here}
The problem with Ruby is that you then have to .() the lambda vs. (), so that is more verbose than just calling the function.
If browsers were to embrace a language that was more Ruby-like and less clunky than JS, I'm sure I'd use it more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, Brendan Eich is a joke for technical reasons as well, like creating JavaScript.
And how many users does your programming language have?
It's too bad that people were willing to ostracize Brendan Eich for not being a cookie-cutter silly-valley progressive. Oculus is facing that now. It's the new mccarthyism.
Brendan has his own startup in SV and appears in JS community podcasts, conferences, and meetups. The community is always talking to him on Twitter in a positive way. He may have had to leave Mozilla, but he's anything but ostracized.
This doesn't make me want to use JS. The power of JS is in two things, it's in every major browser and it doesn't completely suck. JS syntax kind of sucks. The power in JS is that it's dynamic and lets you send functions around, but defining functions is much uglier than defining a lambda in Ruby: -> {anything goes here} or ->(a,b,c) {anything goes here} The problem with Ruby is that you then have to .() the lambda v…
Or (a, b, c) => a * b ^ c