rauschma

9 ms·

31.
by rauschma 7y ago
For someone who already knows how to program or for a complete beginner?
32.
by rauschma 7y ago
My book may work for you (free to read online): “JavaScript for impatient programmers”. http://exploringjs.com/impatient-js/toc.html
33.
by rauschma 10y ago
Cool, thanks for the help!
34.
by rauschma 10y ago
(Full disclosure: I’m the author.)
35.
Show HN: JavaScript books, free online(exploringjs.com)
222 points by rauschma 10y ago|15 comments
36.
by rauschma 11y ago
I don’t think there’ll ever be typed dictionaries (which are a fairly high-level data structure). There is, however, a proposal for typed objects: https://github.com/dslomov/typed-objects-es7
37.
by rauschma 11y ago
Yes, that is left unspecified in the spec: * http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-allocate... (relevant: step 4, CreateByteDataBlock())
38.
by rauschma 11y ago
Typed Arrays are not the most exciting part of ECMAScript 6, but it is still good that they are part of the language now (vs. only a browser API). What surprised me while researching the post was how many browser APIs support Typed Arrays f
39.
by rauschma 12y ago
Yes, that’s how it works. `yield` is only reserved in ES5 strict mode. But due to it only being a keyword inside generators, there are no problems in non-strict mode.
40.
by rauschma 12y ago
AFAICT, `async function` is OK, because you combine a keyword with something that is contextually turned into a keyword. With a single non-keyword that isn’t possble. For example, the following code (a hypothetical ES6 anonymous generator e
41.
by rauschma 12y ago
JavaScript is constrained by backwards compatibility. That’s why the ideal solution, the keyword `generator`, wasn’t possible.
42.
by rauschma 12y ago
His work is great! Linked to from the blog post...
43.
by rauschma 12y ago
[Disclaimer: I’m the author of the blog post.] Knowing the algorithm helps with understanding the difference between the following two function declarations. function move({x=0, y=0} = {}) { /*...*/ } function mo
44.
by rauschma 12y ago
You are absolutely right when it comes to using ECMAScript 6 natively. It will officially become a standard in mid 2015. By then modern browsers should have implemented most of it, but it will be years until legacy browsers go away. It feel
45.
by rauschma 12y ago
Not completely: with getters, you have to decide on a specific set of properties, the proxy GET trap intercepts all get operations. But I agree that you don’t always need proxies.
46.
by rauschma 13y ago
Even though it is about Scheme, the insights in SICP are invaluable for JavaScript programmers (the way I explain and visualize closures and environments are inspired by it). It’s one of the best programming books I’ve ever read. Give my bo
47.
by rauschma 13y ago
It’s an experiment of mine (but I am aware of at least one more O’Reilly book that has been published this way). I’m hoping that it’s win-win: The public version lets people share and link to what they have read (click on a title to create
48.
by rauschma 13y ago
Don’t judge a book by its TOC! I’d love to get your opinion once you have read or at least skimmed, say, chapter 1: http://speakingjs.com/es5/ch01.html
49.
by rauschma 13y ago
It’s a matter of deliberate focus! If you are interested in browser stuff, you can either combine Speaking JS with the content on MDN [1] or buy a different book. I like the books by Nicholas Zakas and “JavaScript: The Definitive Guide”. [1
50.
by rauschma 13y ago
Note that the basics only seem simple. Speaking JS covers them, but also (as optional reading) exposes many of the mechanisms behind them. For example: [1]. The book explains the complete language. I consider functional programming more of
51.
by rauschma 13y ago
It’s certainly a good book. Can you explain why you think it’s better geared towards experienced programmers?
52.
Speaking JavaScript(speakingjs.com)
204 points by rauschma 13y ago|61 comments
53.
New Samuel: a font derived from Morse code(2ality.com)
34 points by rauschma 14y ago|8 comments
54.
by rauschma 14y ago
Excellent background information, thanks!
55.
by rauschma 14y ago
Thanks for writing about your motivations for going to JSConf! If I may, I’ll describe my own motivations for going to a conference. I do so not to contradict your opinion, but simply to offer another perspective. For me, a conference has t
56.
by rauschma 15y ago
“Right now, if I want an application that ‘feels native,’ Javascript is a no-go, and I have to use one of these (closed, proprietary) technologies.” Not true – look at what Microsoft does with Windows 8.
57.
by rauschma 15y ago
This is purely a matter of taste. You only need the parens to tell JavaScript that it is a function expression and not a function declaration (a statement). The outer parens make an IIFE look even more block-like to me, which is why I use i