51–60 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does, see the "fill" step: «So now we have acquired the following extra characters: c,o,v,(,),{,[,],}, .».
Those characters are only inside a string, not as executable code.
Does anyone know a good sandboxing technology to execute user written javascript in a safe way? (like, on other user machines or on the server)? I have some ideas like "learn programming" that would benefit from this immensely.
Used it a few years ago. It was a little finnicky to get working right but I was impressed at the time. No idea where the project is at nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ES6 lets you define functions like a => a * 2 Or (a, b, c) => a * b ^ c
That's succinct, but less clear than the Ruby version, imo, as you don't have any scope indicators required for the function body. JS: let f = (a,b,c) => a * b ^ c; f(2,3,4); vs. Ruby: f = ->(a,b,c) { a * b ^ c } f.(2,3,4) Ruby's shorter and clearer. But, when you use the Ruby lambda more than once in the code, you lose the brevity advantage, because of the "extra" dot. But, in Ruby I use methods more than lambdas, w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's succinct, but less clear than the Ruby version, imo, as you don't have any scope indicators required for the function body. JS: let f = (a,b,c) => a * b ^ c; f(2,3,4); vs. Ruby: f = ->(a,b,c) { a * b ^ c } f.(2,3,4) Ruby's shorter and clearer. But, when you use the Ruby lambda more than once in the code, you lose the brevity advantage, because of the "extra" dot. But, in Ruby I use methods more than lambdas, w…
None is preventing you from writing let f = (a,b,c) => {a * b ^ c}; in JS
Why do I feel like I have read this article a few years ago? I remember it, but it has 2016...
Does anyone know a good sandboxing technology to execute user written javascript in a safe way? (like, on other user machines or on the server)? I have some ideas like "learn programming" that would benefit from this immensely.
The article does not explain how it gets the {}, which is used to get the Object constructor string. Other than that it's very clear.
Why do I feel like I have read this article a few years ago? I remember it, but it has 2016...
Because you did. I came to the comments wondering if this was a shameless ripoff of the original or a re-post from the same author.