3 ms·

I wish there was a 'JavaScript Under the Microscope' like 'Ruby Under the Microscope' by Pat Shaughnessy. I think I would have a much better understanding of J

• noir_lord 13y ago
  > I think I would have a much better understanding of JavaScript if I knew how a good javascript engine works. So would the people who write the good javascript engines. I'm joking but only partially as they have to write an engine against both a standard and a convention plus support all the hacks going back years. It's a mess but what I'm slowly and painfully learning is that if you avoid the shoals and hidden wrecks you can do some cool stuff with JS.
  • erichurkman 13y ago
    One easy step in the right direction is a quality build process that includes linting and strong error/warning reporting. Push your code through the Closure compiler and keep JSHint (or your favorite linter) active in your editor and you're already taking a strong step to better JavaScript.
• gcommer 13y ago
  The author of this quiz could have made this a great learning opportunity by linking to the appropriate sections in ECMA-262[0]. For example, question 15 makes a lot more sense when you read "ToBoolean" (Sec 9.2) which shows that all objects (including arrays) are always considered truthy values, however when compared with ==, "The Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm" (11.9.3) is used, which gives this behavior: >> [0] == [0] false >> a = [0]; a == a true because a shallow comparison is used. [0] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST...
  • anaphor 13y ago
    So it's like Scheme's "eq?", except less useful?