Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development • Hacker News Board

Re: Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development

#71

Post by ufo » Sun, Jul 08, 2012, 5:27 AM UTC

silentbicycle wrote: post #49

ufo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time I saw something like IIFEs was in one of the SICP lectures, where they show that variable definitions with let or define can be seen as syntactic sugar over immediately invoked lambdas. And even those Scheme uber-nerds considered it big hack, more useful in theory then in practice.

It's useful as a de-sugaring step during compilation, not something people generally do by hand.

Continuation Passing Style is also supposed to be used as part of acompilation step but look at how everyone does in by hand in Javascript-land :(

Re: Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development

#72

Post by combataircraft » Mon, Jul 09, 2012, 9:09 PM UTC

saurik wrote: post #70

combataircraft wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been following the work on RequireJS for two years and think that it's an evil project that sabotages the rise of CommonJS, NodeJS and NPM by leading client-side Javascript coders to follow a non-standard, awkward way of JS development. From the very beginning, it forces coders to cover their code with awkward code and maintain it manually. It's completely insane. I even think that I'm wasting my time by talking…

Their (RequireJS's) website claims the following; I would be interested in an argued response/critique. > CommonJS defines a module format. Unfortunately, it was defined without giving browsers equal footing to other JavaScript environments. Because of that, there are CommonJS spec proposals for Transport formats and an asynchronous require.

that's not true. They didn't even experiment CommonJS on browsers properly.

Re: Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development

#73

Post by stephenr » Tue, Jul 10, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

ahoge wrote: post #62

stephenr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cringe when people claim to be writing more than the most basic JS and aren't using prototypes.

It's a style choice. You don't have to use classes and/or do anything with the prototype chain.

> It's a style choice

No. max line lengths is a style choice. indenting with spaces vs tabs is a style choice brace position is a style choice

Using prototypes and instances in JS is about using the right tool for the job.

Re: Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development

#74

Post by silentbicycle » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 6:33 PM UTC

ufo wrote: post #71

silentbicycle wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful as a de-sugaring step during compilation, not something people generally do by hand.

Continuation Passing Style is also supposed to be used as part of acompilation step but look at how everyone does in by hand in Javascript-land :(

For real. I tried to find a way to point that out without sounding snarky, gave up.

Re: Preparing Yourself for Modern JavaScript Development

#75

Post by blessYAHU » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 3:09 PM UTC

wilmoore wrote: post #55

combataircraft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here; http://requirejs.org/docs/ you can see all the smelling shit of requirejs there.

Can you expound please?

A unbaised post comparing the two would be nice. Sounds like a post Addy Osmani would write. I found this post(http://blog.millermedeiros.com/amd-is-better-for-the-web-tha...) talking about why the author thinks AMD is more flexible (better). Though a biased article(though I think the CJS approach to defining an AMD method is reasonable), it does show the syntax of the two approaches. I CJS syntax has less boilerplate, but is that due to fact that CJS loads synchronously? YES, I know processors like Onejs can make so CJS modules can be used in a browser(wonder is the processed result looks similiar to Requirejs?). Just wondering if Requirejs is designed the way it is because it took loading modules asynchronously into account from the begining.