41–50 of 84 posts
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.
It seems nowadays there is no "good" name to google. Every single word in a dictionary is already being used by something else.
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.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers
The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Translation: "more people know JavaScript than CoffeeScript, so you shouldn't bother with CoffeeScript" More people are familiar with Notepad than vi. Does that make vi a bad choice?
> More people are familiar with Notepad than vi. Does that make vi a bad choice? That analogy doesn't work, because editors don't have network effects, whereas programming languages do.
The 82 plugins in my current vim setup really, really beg to differ.
The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features
irony alert: Brendan Eich has said publicly that CoffeeScript was the impetus for several of the features that made it into ES-6, like fat arrows.
Without CoffeeScript, lots of people wouldn’t have known that they wanted some of the things that are in ES-6.
As it is, you don’t need CoffeeScript to develop for Atom. Which is part of the beauty of CoffeeScript. It’s interoperable with what you’re doing today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
const caps = new Array(26).map((item, index) => String.fromCharCode(65 + index)); It's not wrong. Could maybe be better though.
It is wrong. "new Array(26)" creates an Array with preallocated space for 26 elements (instead of 26 'undefined' elements, as one might expect), and calling .map() on it will return another empty array. The semantics here are particularly difficult to reason about because map is specified to not execute its callback on undefined elements. Someone will probably chime in here with a correction, but the point is this --…
For example: [1,2,3,undefined].forEach(ele => console.log(ele)) > 1 > 2 > 3 > undefined On the other hand: [1,2,3,,].forEach(ele => console.log(ele)) > 1 > 2 > 3
So, take the time you dedicate to hating JavaScript to understand the language instead of bitching here you and that stupid jerk above.
Im curious about the name change. What do they stand to gain from losing all of the history of atom shell search results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems nowadays there is no "good" name to google. Every single word in a dictionary is already being used by something else.
Which argues that good names are generally not a single dictionary word. This is like saying "nowadays there are no good passwords people can't guess: people can just try the entire dictionary in a few seconds". If you list major brands, the vast majority of them, even of really really old brands, are either made up words or phrases.
Very different to passwords, which should be computer-generated and computer-stored, you should never know your passwords.