5 ms·

Pardon me, but what's so advanced about these techniques? Anyone writing JavaScript for living should already know these things. You want to talk advanced? How

Pardon me, but what's so advanced about these techniques? Anyone writing JavaScript for living should already know these things. You want to talk advanced? How about lazy function definition [http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/lazy-function-definition-pattern http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/lazy-function-definition-pa...]? Or say actual advanced JavaScript? http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/ http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/

n-named 17y ago
There's also an issue with his myMethodValue. It's actually a global variable (try alert(window.myMethodValue). He should have used var myMethodValue within the function definition.
howardr 17y ago
Although it is helpful to the very junior developers at my company, the techniques are by no means "advanced." I suggest he change the title to "Javascript Basics Everyone Should Know." It's not a terrible article, and he doesn't have bad advice, but as someone else points out in another comment he makes some pretty rookie mistakes (new Objects() instead of {})...
slice 17y ago
The lazy function technique can easily become an example of bad coding practice. Code needs to be easy to read, understand, and maintain. In most cases solution 2 is good enough, in all cases it's much simpler. Advanced techniques should only be used when there is a clear justification to sacrifice simplicity. It is disastrous when developers use so-called "advanced" technique only to entertain themselves and show-off. You are judged not by the niftyness of your code, but by the availability, maintainability, stability and functionality of your system as a whole.
- kls 17y ago
  Code needs to produce predictable results without bugs. All other qualities are secondary. Good code without bugs is well encapsulated and should work as a black box. Elegance is secondary to reliability. I am not saying that it is not important, just not as important as reliability. As a general rule of thumb less lines of code translates into higher reliability. I know it does not apply to every case but it is a good starting point.
slig 17y ago
Thanks for the ejohn's link. I've been reading his new book, and this pretty much all the code that he shows there. (as far as I've read)

n-named 17y ago

There's also an issue with his myMethodValue. It's actually a global variable (try alert(window.myMethodValue). He should have used var myMethodValue within the function definition.

howardr 17y ago

Although it is helpful to the very junior developers at my company, the techniques are by no means "advanced." I suggest he change the title to "Javascript Basics Everyone Should Know." It's not a terrible article, and he doesn't have bad advice, but as someone else points out in another comment he makes some pretty rookie mistakes (new Objects() instead of {})...

slice 17y ago

The lazy function technique can easily become an example of bad coding practice. Code needs to be easy to read, understand, and maintain. In most cases solution 2 is good enough, in all cases it's much simpler. Advanced techniques should only be used when there is a clear justification to sacrifice simplicity. It is disastrous when developers use so-called "advanced" technique only to entertain themselves and show-off. You are judged not by the niftyness of your code, but by the availability, maintainability, stability and functionality of your system as a whole.

kls 17y ago
Code needs to produce predictable results without bugs. All other qualities are secondary. Good code without bugs is well encapsulated and should work as a black box. Elegance is secondary to reliability. I am not saying that it is not important, just not as important as reliability. As a general rule of thumb less lines of code translates into higher reliability. I know it does not apply to every case but it is a good starting point.

slig 17y ago

Thanks for the ejohn's link. I've been reading his new book, and this pretty much all the code that he shows there. (as far as I've read)