61–70 of 103 posts
What's the "correct" ("less funny"?) result of Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!" ? Empty strings separated with NaN s look perfectly logical to me (I'm a JS guy though, so, well, bear with me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish there was some technology that could take a bunch of code and warn you of common errors before having it execute and 'noisily crash the page it was on'. Maybe someday...
Sarcasm doesn't work here. It's not reasonable to expect proper testing or usage of an IDE by ordinary citizens authoring HTML. Specially in 1996.
That's 15 commas, not 16.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why it happens. I'm saying that what you're pointing out is not in the nature of JavaScript, it's in the REPL. It's just wrong ; there is no other situation where that code would evaluate that way. node is behaving "properly", showing you what value you can expect if you, say, assign that expression to a variable. I guess it's an amusing bit of sleight-of-hand, but using it to mock JavaScript seems, I do…
It's a joke. Relax.
To clarify, I thought the first part of the talk was funny. Here's a weird bit of Ruby. Hah! Here's a weird bit of JavaScript. Hah! Here's some JavaScript to make you think it's weird in a way it actually isn't! Uh, okay? Just don't see what's funny about that, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah that makes sense, thank you. I may steal that idea for future talks with R. Though, just embedding a shell in a slide deck would be very nice.
I like the sliced screencasts because they're so repeatable. I practice my talks a lot, and I can get the timing down perfectly because it's always the same. Highly recommended. :)
Guess I'm not a hacker? It's like watching a rerun I've seen twice over with the laugh track turned up to 11 (just to clarify, someone said it was a repost but I haven't seen it before).
Guess I'm not a hacker? It's like watching a rerun I've seen twice over with the laugh track turned up to 11 (just to clarify, someone said it was a repost but I haven't seen it before).
Yeah count me in the "not a hacker, I guess" crowd, this stuff isn't very funny.
I managed about halfway through. I did have the audio turned off, so I'm assuming I missed out on some of the redeeming qualities it may have had. Given the liberal usage of "wat" throughout what I did watch, I suspect that my gut feel is likely correct.
Guess I'm not a hacker? It's like watching a rerun I've seen twice over with the laugh track turned up to 11 (just to clarify, someone said it was a repost but I haven't seen it before).
Yeah count me in the "not a hacker, I guess" crowd, this stuff isn't very funny.
Anyway, guess I'm not a hacker either.
EDIT ok my bad it was mentioned on the screencasts homepage