dherman

13 ms·

91.
by dherman 14y ago
Sure! Right now there's just Michael's GitHub repo (this is literally only a few weeks old) but I've created an IRC channel -- join us at #lljs on irc.mozilla.org. You may have better luck getting attention during the work week, though. ;-)
92.
by dherman 14y ago
In practice, most safe languages provide back doors and foreign interfaces to unsafe code. Look at Obj.magic in Ocaml, or unsafePerformIO in haskell, or ffi/unsafe in Racket. But on the web, you obviously can't tolerate true unsafe back d
93.
by dherman 14y ago
Think of it more like C (really more like a hybrid of C and JS) compiling to JS. It runs on the web, but it compiles to a very stylized kind of JS: it allocates a large typed array that represents a C-like heap and does its memory access on
94.
by dherman 14y ago
This is a project run by Michael Bebenita at Mozilla Research, along with our colleague Shu-Yu Guo.
95.
by dherman 14y ago
I replied in a comment on my post, but Disqus is having issues today and anyway I want to say a bit more. >> What should the expander do when it sees: quux (mumble, flarg) [1, 2, 3] { foo: 3 } grunch /wibble/i > It expa
96.
by dherman 15y ago
I'm a friend of Matt's, and I enjoy his blog posts, but I'm afraid this post is full of bad advice and misinformation. He claims that `with` followed by an object literal is fully statically analyzable (it's not, because of prototypes), and
97.
by dherman 15y ago
Haskell has curly braces and semicolons.
98.
by dherman 15y ago
I use semicolons pretty heavily in Lisp. ;)
99.
by dherman 15y ago
No ambiguity; if you put brackets around it you get a tuple (really, an array of fixed elements), and without brackets, the comma is part of the function signature. If you wanted to express your interpretation #1 you'd write: f :: ((N
100.
by dherman 15y ago
It's a grammar hack, but IMO an intuitive one: if you have whitespace around the ::, it's a contract annotation; otherwise it's the prototype operator. To quote Jeremy Ashkenas's JSConf talk on forking CoffeeScript: "when in doubt, cheat."
101.
by dherman 16y ago
>> I think this document is either omitting the important details or it simply doesn't address the namespacing problem correctly. Remember when Prototype.js had a document.getElementsByClassName? Fun times when that broke. Interferi
102.
by dherman 16y ago
First let me say that as a long time Schemer, and one who did his graduate work on the semantics of macros, I am quite positively disposed towards macros. In theory, I think it'd be great for JavaScript to develop a macro system. That said,