A little JavaScript nugget re: scope-safe constructors:
The crux here is how the scope-safe trick (with instanceof) turns the constructor into a factory for itself, which allows you to pass it to map or any similar function where you might want to operate on a whole bunch of items.
Alas — with IE10 ("and above") this means we're up against this problem again. In this post, Lazaris demonstrates three methods for coping with IE10. Unfortunately, they all smell of brittle hacks. As usual: tread carefully.
The value proposition was not immediately obvious to me ("So… it's like a more strict or more structured version of SMACSS?") and as such I feel like I need to use it and/or meditate on it a bit before I can form a real opinion. But there's a decent summary here (including the comment thread).
An (apocryphal?) tale: 1 when Brendan Eich unveiled the original JavaScript (nee LiveScript, nee Mocha) prototype at (then) Netscape, it was a Lisp. 2 It was only at management’s insistence that the language received a C-like syntax, and even then it was mostly to have some kind of syntactic parity with Java (with which it was supposed to provide some “glue”). Now: if you think about JavaScript using this lens, then it is easy to conjure up images of ClojureScript as “the JavaScript that could have been”. 3
And that is exactly what we have in Sierra and VanderHart’s ClojureScript: Up and Running — a guided quickstart to the language that JavaScript could have been. And what an interesting little language it is! Continue reading →
tl;dr: Here's how to set up your Google Spreadsheet. Here is how to publish the data as ATOM. Here is how to transform the ATOM data to JSON. Now go ahead and feed that into your data visualization library of choice. (Albeit, you may need to munge it a bit.)
See also: tabletop.js.
That being said: you're going to need to get the REPL up and running (there's no better way to learn Clojure than to tinker with it in the REPL!) and there's a good chance that you'll get an error about "No such file or directory" from Sublime Text. Refer to this issue in GitHub to solve that problem.
tl;dr: Unless you're dealing with touch events, and some of the -ms-vendor-prefixed stuff, you're probably fine.
pushState implementation, and some of the pitfalls to watch out for when mucking around in those APIs on your own time.…commenter David Carson more/less summarized my true feelings on the matter.
The web has become a powerful platform for delivering high quality software, but front-end developers everywhere recognize that it's not a level playing field. Yes, there are shims and fallbacks and polyfills. Yes, there are ways of progressively enhancing your offering. But there's also a point where you should be able to say: "This is high-quality software, and these are the requirements."
Sometimes you need to make that choice. And in &yet;'s case, and especially in the case of &! — I think that they totally made the right choice. They chose the features they wanted to deliver and focused on those. (And I'm pretty sure it was just a prototype at the time Hanselman wrote this blog post.)
“It feels more responsible and ecologically sound to eat an animal that was raised wild and natural in my local habitat than to eat a cow that was fattened up on grain or even hay, which is inevitably harvested with fuel-hungry machines,” writes Christie Aschwanden, a self-described “tree-hugging former vegetarian.”
Also:
[All] it takes is overturning two long-held beliefs among many urban liberals: that it is wrong to personally kill animals and that hunters are all rural conservatives.
Right off the bat, and just so we’re clear about this: I read an “Early Release” edition of Mark Ethan Trostler’s Testable JavaScript, and in a lot of places… it shows. I’m sure it will come through editing and be a lot tighter by the time you read it. 1
Putting its rough “Early Release” nature aside, I had some mixed feelings about this book. I’ll try to explain it as follows:
Rebecca Murphey (@rmurphey) did a talk during the 2012 JavaScript Summit (put on by E4H) which was titled “Writing Testable JavaScript”. 2 Early on in that talk, she impressed upon us that she was going to talk about how to write testable JavaScript, and not how to write JavaScript tests, nor how to test JavaScript. These are important distinctions. Writing tests (in a way) is this weird hybrid of somehow both writing more code and writing documentation. And testing your code is … well, it’s the act of putting your code through the accompanying tests to see if they pass muster. But writing testable code is about adopting a certain style wherein your code becomes easier to test as a consequence of that style. And the argument goes that if your code is easier to test, then it will also be easier to reason about. (Insert functional programming rant here.) Continue reading →
Will dry-cured meats be the next great Vermont food wave?
Well, I certainly hope so.
Here I’d like to present a few observations from my exploration into functional programming in an object-oriented world.
- Immutable objects good; Mutable objects bad
- An object is a collection of partially applied functions
- An object’s API provides a clear separation between Commands and Queries
- An object is a snapshot of state and possible outcomes
- An object is a persistent data structure
Not sure how this escaped my attention until this week…
This is great. Here are their notes, and Ilya’s associated blog post.
…why on earth would you want to carpet bomb every div on your site?
Which (actually) I first caught from @Horse_JS…
agile introverts
fear becoming a zombie
headless jasmine test
“Search Term Haiku” is a series wherein I examine this site’s log files and construct one or more haiku poems from search terms and phrases that led visitors to the site. Where possible, I attempt to keep the search phrases intact. However, as these are haiku poems, I do need to follow the rules.
Regardless of whether you agree with him [Biden] or not, or if history has proven him right or wrong, he is one of the few figures in the most senior echelon of foreign policy thinking in Washington willing to give voice to unpopular views on the national security questions of the day that might otherwise be absent from the debate.