41–50 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions this, and links to the same page.
Still, though, could there not be a similar scheme where instead of unpublishing the module, the maintainer intentionally inserts a divide by zero somewhere and pushes it as a minor update?
Why not build a scanner for common structures like "isArray" and automatically submit a PR to replace the usage with built-in tools or something like lodash. (I know program comparison is akin to the halting-problem, but for simple templates it should work).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he openly, in black and white, says it is satire?
How does this fall under the definition of satire? “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” Where’s the humor? Where’s the irony? What is he “satirizing”? He’s trolling and calling it “satire.”
I mean, that isArray example is exactly the kind of code that 99% of developers wouldn't come up with on their own, since it's not intuitive at all to check whether or not the value is an array in that way. If anything I would just be in favor of a name for the package that made it clear that it's intended for legacy compatibility.
I mean, that isArray example is exactly the kind of code that 99% of developers wouldn't come up with on their own, since it's not intuitive at all to check whether or not the value is an array in that way. If anything I would just be in favor of a name for the package that made it clear that it's intended for legacy compatibility.
I mean, that isArray example is exactly the kind of code that 99% of developers wouldn't come up with on their own, since it's not intuitive at all to check whether or not the value is an array in that way. If anything I would just be in favor of a name for the package that made it clear that it's intended for legacy compatibility.
It’s also wrong because the representation wasn’t exactly always deterministic in 2013 across all js engines. The right way to check for an array is value.constructor === Array, which also doesn’t really make any sense because an array in JS really is just an object with a length key and respective keys names 0…n.