masswerk

It's really hard to say, but some of the high-res scans of DEC promotional material for the Type 30 CRT (1024 x 1024) at bitsavers.org are showing screenshots with a pretty good quality: http:&#…

Note: You may still use `call` and `apply` on them to supply arguments, but you may not change the this-object. (So, they are still subject to these calls. But this does not affect the use-case given …

Dear down-voter: The case of an arrow function asserting the type "function" and its prototype being `Function.prototype`, while not being subject to `call` or `apply` (for `this` being lexi…

Hmm, reading the Harmony specs, an arrow function asserts ' typeof () => {} === "function"' and 'Object.getPrototypeOf(() => {}) === Function.prototype', but is not…

I would just point out the ambiguity while working with legacy code and ES6 applications. (A separate name would have been fine. But of course, there is the reserved names problem.) From a practical p…

But the same `this` will have different semantics, depending on the context (is it a function or object, or is it an arrow function?). Also, strict mode will be ignored for this (rather than overridin…

There has been some discussion lately of JS being too verbose – this seems to be adding semantic sugar to address this. But introducing ambiguous semantics is quite an other thing.

Or it could be some kind of "cargo cult" from the implementation in an other language, considering some of the popular writings and discussion in the last time. Personally, I would prefer JS…

Edit: I think, explicitly asserting the binding by an assignment ("var that = this;") isn't the worst option and you may always trace back the variable to the binding-point. It may be a…

In my view on `this`, changing the semantics would always harm the generality of functions as first class entities. In case I would assign a function to an object as a method, what would this mean for…

Great! A few things that are rather addressing the Harmony proposal: - `this` in arrow functions: Now this is breaking the standard behavior AND strict mode. I understand that we're running out o…

There seems to be some inaccuracy involved regarding the engine: At least following to the (quite extensive) German Wikipedia article, the Walter propulsion[1] never reached production state and the d…

So you didn't read this (again)? Yes, it's a carefully worded criticism on my side, too. And as is clearly stated in the intro of the initial post, it's on criticism on a language from …

Sorry to see you downvoting a comment which doesn't please your expectations. 1) You are ignoring the notion of some, if not most, of the incriminated features being also present in highly regard…

The problem appears to be, some tend to get confused, who is the caller and who is the callee. For this, please just consider that the DOM-interface is not part of the language, but just -- as the nam…

On the `this` feature: This is mostly a "problem" with the DOM-interface, which is not part of the language. But there is even a solutions for this in JS: Object.handleEvent() -- Why is ever…

But by doing so, the post marks a real problem: The critique of JS seems to be mostly based on the prestige the languages is enjoying -- or rather the lack thereof -- in a community. Any of those feat…

Just upvoted the post, sorry. ;-) These rants really seem to be based on the degree of respect some languages are enjoying in a certain community. Take weak typing / type coercion for an example:…

BTW: your case on "this" is not JS, it's the the DOM interface (not part of the language). From the point of view of the DOM it's probably right: The element applies itself to a ca…

Hmm. JS was before Ruby and Python, so it couldn't have screwed up something to be found there. (BTW: HyperTalk was also "me".) The very nature of "this" in JS is because of l…

P.S.: What this really is about: Unit tests originally designed to go with C/C++ do not work well with late binding. In fact this is a concept totally foreign to these languages. It's essent…

Sorry to say, but klmr is right. Since functions are first-class objects and references are evaluated late, these issues are already managed by JS and native scopes. There's no need to recreate t…

What I personally really do enjoy is "var self = this;". Now you just overwrote the system variable pointing to the global object. What was this good for? Oh, the other language doesn't…

Hmm -- there's no indication for the author not understanding the patterns. The point is, JS does not need these patterns (which are usually imported concepts from other languages), there are uni…

So, authorship is out of control? Thinking of textbook authors as mere "rebundlers", where does this leave the author of the article? Is authorship/IP really yet another convenience, wh…

jQuery -- The world's most popular misunderstanding ...

What you are missing, if we're following the arguments of the initial article, is, why there's 1024, 2048, etc, at all. If "free" is the better distribution model, and that's …

Hum, if I got the initial post right, that was the very point made here. If we would want to have developers to invest in original ideas in a market that has so little barriers, it's probably up …