ahoge

40 ms·

331.
by ahoge 13y ago
> let's assume that MS Word will give you a 1% performance increase over LibreOffice That's a pretty big assumption. I've used both products. I didn't notice any noteworthy differences when it came to regular usage.
332.
by ahoge 13y ago
> I wasted a handful of weeks digging around in debug builds looking at bailout log entries and trying to decipher their IR using the broken log viewer they recommend, and the net result was that my code ended up faster for a few weeks u
333.
by ahoge 13y ago
> ECMAScript 4 had to be dropped when people realized that turning JavaScript into a JS-Java hybrid increased complexity rather than decreasing it. AS3 (which completely conforms with the ES4 draft specification) is a lot nicer to use t
334.
by ahoge 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Battery_lif... > The rate of degradation of lithium-ion batteries is strongly temperature-dependent; they degrade much faster if stored or used at higher temperature
335.
by ahoge 13y ago
Language specifications are important for interoperability. They are very useful for people who write tools like smart IDEs or linters. They are also interesting for people who want to create their own VM or compiler. There are various Java
336.
by ahoge 13y ago
There still isn't any language specification, is there? JavaScript, TypeScript, and Dart have one.
337.
by ahoge 13y ago
One of our clients once complained that one of their web fonts weren't loaded. The file in question was blocked by their stupid proxy because its name was " brand SansExtended", which happens to contain the substring "
338.
by ahoge 13y ago
Yep, there are only doubles in JavaScript. With doubles, integer values work fine up to 2^53. After that point, things get silly. >>> Math.pow(2, 53) === Math.pow(2, 53) - 1 false >>> Math.pow(2, 53) === Math
339.
by ahoge 13y ago
JavaScript turned out poorly because the first version was quickly thrown together (within 10 days, supposedly) by a single person. Furthermore, this person didn't care about tooling and he also didn't have any clue about optimizi
340.
by ahoge 13y ago
> Explain how a technology 100% designed and controlled by a single company is good for the open web. Are you talking about JavaScript? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History
341.
by ahoge 13y ago
> if all the early design decisions were made in secret Sounds like any other language or any other piece of technology. No one starts with standards. This always happens some time after 1.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
342.
by ahoge 13y ago
> With Dart, Web authors may end up not shipping the JS fallback Why wouldn't you? Minifying Dart or compiling Dart to JavaScript is basically the same. You invoke the very same command line tool just with different switches. Why w
343.
by ahoge 13y ago
> I could not understand the decision to drop Chrome Frame. They didn't drop Chrome Frame. It was a stopgap solution from the very beginning. It gave companies 4 (!) more years to fix their infrastructure. It did what it was suppos
344.
by ahoge 13y ago
The only way to fix email is to make encryption mandatory.
345.
by ahoge 13y ago
> All those ES6 features are obviously in the standardization process. Today they are, yes. Just like text-overflow:ellipsis (which was introduced with IE6) is now part of CSS3.
346.
by ahoge 13y ago
> Dart - obviously a way to create a two-tier web with Chrome being the only option for performance. The performance of the generated JavaScript is okay. Typically, it's somewhere around 75% of the performance of handwritten JavaS
347.
by ahoge 13y ago
> Every time Firefox introduces a cool new feature, they emphasize how it's standard, or being put into the standardization process [...] No, not really. They just added `let`, iterators/generators, destructuring assignment,
348.
by ahoge 13y ago
> When your eyes shift from one position to the other, they take time to move and land on the other location. But here’s the kicker: you never see your eyes move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking You
349.
by ahoge 13y ago
>Destructuring references is not yet supported on Chrome Eh. Yea, Firefox got support for that (and `let` and generators/iterators), because they added it in 2006 (Firefox 2.0) as an experimental feature. https://develope
350.
by ahoge 13y ago
Which title? Anyhow, it's "JavaScript" with a capital 'S'.
351.
by ahoge 13y ago
They also offer VPS ("vServer") for about 8€/month. You can ssh into those, can't you?
352.
by ahoge 13y ago
During development, you can just use Dartium (a special build of Chromium with native Dart support). With Dartium, you can debug directly from within the IDE. There are also source maps if you ever need to debug it elsewhere.
353.
by ahoge 13y ago
> Dart VM will never be in IE , Firefox or Safari. Same deal with CoffeeScript or TypeScript. But that shouldn't stop anyone since you can just compile to JavaScript. Minifying Dart and compiling Dart to JavaScript is almost the s
354.
by ahoge 13y ago
Dart fixes all of JavaScript's "WAT" quirks. There is proper lexical scoping, a lexically scoped `this`, no type coercion, no monkey-patching, and so forth. It also has a "method_missing" thing called "noSuchMe
355.
by ahoge 13y ago
> the homoiconi[ci]ty of JSON and JS There is a package for making interacting with JSON more seamless and JavaScript-like: http://pub.dartlang.org/packages/json_object > Google being the main sponsor just makes me slightly war
356.
by ahoge 13y ago
The left and right cursor keys generally work.
357.
by ahoge 13y ago
> modern-looking web pages Well, herein lies the problem: It's not a web page, it's a slide deck. But I do agree in general. The slides alone are often not very interesting or useful without the talk. Hopefully, it was recorded.
358.
by ahoge 13y ago
> That said Dart isn't that JS2. To me, it is. Dart fixed everything which was wrong with JavaScript. There is proper lexical scoping, a lexically scoped `this`, no type coercion, build-in classes/inheritance, built-in dependency hand
359.
by ahoge 13y ago
>[JavaScript's] implementors and community have been quite unwilling to fix these issues [...] You can't really fix things. It would break the web. You can only add stuff on top. >JavaScript's scoping and variable hoisting are unnec
360.
by ahoge 13y ago
I literally meant none of JavaScript's flaws from the "WAT" talk. Anyhow, JavaScript doesn't have any kind of generics or types. Do you really prefer that?

More ›