/prog/ - javascript ``done right''

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:57

ok, since you faggots have nothing better to do than diss javascript even after i've totally destroyed your arguments, i'm giving you the opportunity to put your dad's money where your mouth is and try to convince me how it could be ``improved''

this is going to be entertaining to say the least

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:58

I thought you left months ago.
Anyway, I'll start: how about some TCO?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:00

>>2
ES6. try again

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:05

>>3
Is that actually implemented anywhere yet?

What about some more cruft like generators and iterators? I'd sure like some more syntax that adds no expressibility.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:07

Oh yeah, and the prototype inheritance model. I'd rather not have it "walk up a chain" to find some method it should know it has immediately. That seems slow by design.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:10

>>4
the generator support is unprecedented. obviously you're too much of a mental midget to understand lazy evaluation

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:13

>>6
Closures can do everything generators can.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:23

1. Integers.
2.



             )}();

         )}();

    )}();

)}();

3. JEWS.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:25

Oh look, the Javashit kike is an epic troll! XD

Please stop bringing your imageboard customs to this textboard. You don't purposely start a ``troll'' thread in /prog/ that doesn't mention Jews or Leah.

Fuck off back to /g/.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:34

>>9
You're the only one who does this. Back to /g/ please.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:35

No modules, no integers, anal prolapse-loose type system, half-assed OOP implementation,



''        ==   '0'           //false

0         ==   ''            //true

0         ==   '0'           //true

false     ==   'false'       //false

false     ==   '0'           //true

false     ==   undefined     //false

false     ==   null          //false

null      ==   undefined     //true

" \t\r\n" ==   0             //true

, resource hog, optional usage of semicolons, ===, ambiguous syntax (new Function, seriously?), parseInt(), with, [code]hasOwnProperty()[code] (which also reminds me of the inconsistent capitalization of everything, no constants, fucked up scopes, the DOM is fucking shit, fucking C-style syntax for a ``functional'' programming language, inconsistent implementations across platforms (not even Java has fucked up this bad), pulled out of a kike's ass in less than 2 years, cruft on top of shit, hipster shit, the Javashit kike uses it.

[b][i][o][u][m][aa]Back to /g/, please.[/aa][/m][/u][/o][/i][/b]

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

>>11
Sorry for the unclosed

 tag.



No modules, no integers, anal prolapse-loose type system, half-assed OOP implementation, [code]

''        ==   '0'           //false

0         ==   ''            //true

0         ==   '0'           //true

false     ==   'false'       //false

false     ==   '0'           //true

false     ==   undefined     //false

false     ==   null          //false

null      ==   undefined     //true

" \t\r\n" ==   0             //true

, resource hog, optional usage of semicolons, ===, ambiguous syntax (new Function, seriously?), parseInt(), with, hasOwnProperty() (which also reminds me of the inconsistent capitalization of everything, no constants, fucked up scopes, the DOM is fucking shit, fucking C-style syntax for a ``functional'' programming language, inconsistent implementations across platforms (not even Java has fucked up this bad), pulled out of a kike's ass in less than 2 years, cruft on top of shit, hipster shit, the Javashit kike uses it.

Back to /g/, please.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

>>12
Forgot to comment out the tag. But I already made my point clear.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:38

>>11,12
I'm saving this kopipe.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:42

>>11,12
pulled out of a kike's ass in less than 2 years
um it was less than 10 days. get your facts straight

the fact that javascript could be developed that quickly is a testament to how elegant it is

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:44

>>15
What I meant is, any language that is planned for less than 2 years is shit.

Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:45

>>16
Fuck off, you're not me.

>>15
How about you attack the argument directly instead of evading it with words such as ``elegant''? Oh, right, you ``troll'' the imageboard way. You fuck off too.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:47

>>15
Tried too hard. 1/10

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:49

>>17
sorry, i dont respond to posts containing logical fallacies

yours is an exception because it was so mind-bogglingly inane that it actually hurt to read

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:53

javascript ``in lisp''

Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:54

>>17
fuck you fagshit

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:00

                                        `

>sagebombing a programming thread because you don't like the OP

e/b/in raid /g/ro

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Why isn't lel running his sage responding script? This thread would die twice as fast.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

>>20
that would be redundant

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:08

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:09

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:10

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:11

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:12

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:13

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:14

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:15

fuck am i banned or what?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:16

testing in test board.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:16

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:17

egin

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:17

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:18

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:22

Automatic type conversion between strings and numbers, combined with '+' overloaded to mean concatenation and addition. This creates very counterintuitive effects if you accidentally convert a number to a string:



 var i = 1;  

 // some code

 i = i + ""; // oops!

 // some more code 

 i + 1;  // evaluates to the String '11'

 i - 1;  // evaluates to the Number 0

The automatic type conversion of the + function also leads to the intuitive effect that += 1 is different then the ++ operator:



 var j = "1";

 j++; // j becomes 2

 

 var k = "1";

 k += 1; // k becomes "11"

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:25

>>148
"11" - 1
10

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:26

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:27

>>57
because he's already using his script to sagespam

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:28

"I'm not the OP and I absolutely don't go on /g/! I'm /g/reentexting le ironically! XD"
- >>42

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:28

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:29

>>148
this is intuitive behavior

an empty string is a null byte, why shouldn't that be treated as 0?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:29

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:30

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:31

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:32

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:33

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:35

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:36

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:38

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:39

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:40

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:41

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:42

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:43

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:44

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:45

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:46

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:47

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:48

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:49

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:50

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:51

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:52

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:53

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:54

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:55

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:59

Since that post has made you this mad I'm going to save it too and post it to everyone who wants to know why javashit is so shitty, thank you.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:00

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:01

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:02

>>337
There's another, more comprehensive one somewhere. There's also lengthy blog posts on the matter, floating around somewhere.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:29

LISP

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 16:30

JEWS

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-11 1:16

Can't even go all the way with his pathetic bot, sad day for the jew.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-11 2:19

WORST LANGUAGE EVER

^{I sage profusely this thread.}

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-11 4:53

Mandatory:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1347194129/3
https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/
https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

bookmark, or bot reply

Name: 2013-11-09 13:48

Name: Anonymous 2013-11-10 15:00

>>364
lepedophile sage
>>365
le pedophile sage

Name: Anonymous 2013-11-10 18:07

It's not Haskell!

/thread

Name: Anonymous 2013-11-10 18:13

>le pedophile sage

Name: Anonymous 2013-11-12 10:56

>─────▄████▀█▄
   >───▄█████████████████▄
   >─▄█████.▼.▼.▼.▼.▼.▼▼▼▼
   >▄███████▄.▲.▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
   >███████████████████▀▀
   YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY THE GATOR OF DOOM! REPOST THIS 5 TIMES OR GET GATORED!!!

javascript ``done right''

1 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:57

2 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:58

3 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:00

4 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:05

5 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:07

6 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:10

7 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:13

8 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:23

9 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:25

10 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:34

11 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:35

12 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

13 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

14 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:38

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:42

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:44

17 Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:45

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:47

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:49

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:53

21 Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:54

22 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

23 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

24 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

25 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

26 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

27 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

28 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

29 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

30 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

31 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

32 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

33 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

34 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

35 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

36 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

37 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

38 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

39 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

40 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

41 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

42 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:00

43 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

44 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

45 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

46 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

47 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

48 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

49 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

50 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

51 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

52 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

53 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

54 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

55 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

56 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

57 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

58 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

59 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

60 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

61 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

62 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

63 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

64 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

65 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

66 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

67 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

68 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

69 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

70 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

71 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

72 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

73 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

74 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

75 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

76 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

77 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

78 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

79 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 13:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:00

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:10

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:13

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:23

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:25

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:35

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:38

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:42

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:44

Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:45

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:47

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:49

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:53

Name: >>12 2013-02-10 14:54

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:56

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:57

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:58

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:59

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:00

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:01

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:07