padolsey

91 ms·

1. 541.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   It's not something that can be resolved by simply removing `Function.apply` or the `new` operator. The way that the `this` keyword works is an integral of how JS works. There's nothing stopping you from using `Function.prototype.bind` or de
2. 542.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   The jQuery annoyance you describe is a trait of JavaScript and the idea of bound function contexts. I think most of the "annoyances" that people encounter with jQuery is that "it doesn't do this really cool thing my other language/framework
3. 543.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   It's just a regular JS object. JSON !== JavaScript object notation. E.g. according to the JSON spec, you should always quote property names (`{"foo":123}`) but regular JS doesn't require this (`{foo:123}`). More: http://benalman.com/news/2
4. 544.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   Technically, not JSON.
5. 545.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   AFAIK, `defer` only works in IE, and `async` only works in: IE10p2+, Chrome 11+, Safari 5+, Firefox 3.6+ So some browsers would be left out, right?
6. 546.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   I'm sure the content is interesting but the website's design seems dull and generic.
7. 547.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   I agree with everything you've said but I don't think we can classify it as a disease.
8. 548.▲
   by padolsey 15y ago

   I like its simplicity. But, I thought this was dead: onClick="javascript:smoke.alert('this is a normal alert');" ... apparently, not. The 'javascript:' (attempted psuedo protocol), is just acting as a pointless label here. I also tho