CrossEye

5 ms·

1.
by CrossEye 9y ago
I wonder if whatever is left of Netscape can sue Microsoft now over JScript...
2.
by CrossEye 10y ago
And many of us have gained a great deal by having you publish on the side. Thanks, raganwald!
3.
by CrossEye 11y ago
Ok, that helps make it a bit more palatable to me. Thanks for the information. One question, though: How do user functions interact in here? If you didn't include `flatten`, but I had my own version of it, would it be straightforward
4.
by CrossEye 11y ago
It's a funny world. Each of us is looking at the other library thinking there's too much magic involved. :-) Ramda is [considering a technique][1] that would significantly reduce call stacks. But there is nothing likely to help
5.
by CrossEye 11y ago
as inglor said, this depends on strict mode: > var isboxed = (function() {"use strict"; return function isboxed() {return this instanceof Number;}}()); > isboxed.call(5); false
6.
by CrossEye 11y ago
That is ceratainly one of my standard examples. The best answer to this seems to be simply: var sum = ls => ls.reduce(add, 0) ISTM that this is neither as elegant nor as easy to reason about, but it's also not horrible. It
7.
by CrossEye 11y ago
No, in fact the real problem has been that too many incompetent people were far too certain about how to use it.
8.
by CrossEye 11y ago
The difference starts to show when you want to partially apply some values. // process1 :: (Item -> Bool) -> [Item] -> [OtherType] // process2 :: [Item] -> [OtherType] process1(isOk, items); &#x
9.
by CrossEye 11y ago
That's not sad. Use the tools that work for you. It was finding that those tools were no longer supporting the way I wanted to work that got me started on Ramda. I'm guessing the same is true for the author of Trine.
10.
by CrossEye 11y ago
(Disclosure: one of the authors of Ramda here, so I may well be biased toward a very different approach.) This is an interesting approach, but I get caught right at the beginning, where you say "What you'd really want to do is thi
11.
by CrossEye 11y ago
"governments and private companies" certainly do not preclude committees. Quite to the contrary, in fact.
12.
by CrossEye 12y ago
Disclosure: self-submission
13.
The Philosophy of Ramda(fr.umio.us)
2 points by CrossEye 12y ago|1 comments
14.
by CrossEye 12y ago
Yes, and those damned Italians still refuse to switch to English too!
15.
by CrossEye 12y ago
Very well said. I work on the Ramda ( http://ramdajs.com/ ) FP JS library with the OP. Ramda is heavily invested in currying, and I don't yet have a clue how we'll deal with default parameters. At first guess, we
16.
by CrossEye 12y ago
I think the concern is simple, really. People are going to be told (rightly so) to use `let` instead of `var`. If they do so too mechanically, and their code is structured in certain ways, an expression which could never before throw an ex
17.
by CrossEye 12y ago
I've just started learning Clojure, and I haven't spent any time yet on Clojurescript.
18.
by CrossEye 12y ago
I've read and commented on many of these posts (the latest one far too frequently! :-) ). Excellent stuff.
19.
by CrossEye 12y ago
Hasn't that meme died yet? Well, I for one won't help keep it alive by pointing to the recently discovered talk video found here:....
20.
by CrossEye 12y ago
I apologize. I really posted it on my site only as a convenience for myself, not to be published. I never really considered anything but projection at the time. Although I can view it on my fairly large phone, the experience is not great
21.
by CrossEye 12y ago
While I'm not upset that this has been posted here and has been garnering some attention, this talk wasn't designed for this kind of consumption. I have given this talk to two kinds of audiences: * In a large corporate office wit
22.
by CrossEye 12y ago
That, I think, is working with the grain in Javascript. It's extremely difficult to do static checking in the language in any case, because in the language `foo.bar` is just syntactic sugar for `foo['bar']`. A FP approach i
23.
by CrossEye 12y ago
The idea was just to show that, contrary to many people's expectations, OOP is not the only widely used paradigm in business programming.
24.
by CrossEye 12y ago
No video was recorded on the occasions I gave the talk. I'd apologize, but actually, you should probably thank me. :-)
25.
by CrossEye 12y ago
Very nice talk! I've used that formatting too, and while it can be very useful when running a presentation by yourself, it's not so nice for slides shared with someone who doesn't know it.
26.
by CrossEye 12y ago
There is no video for this. I gave the talk several times to small groups, but never recorded it. Sorry. But you don't want to see my ugly mug, anyway.
27.
by CrossEye 12y ago
One of the co-authors, yes. Mike Hurley and I have been developing the library for around 18 months. For the last six months, we've had many additional contributors, including some prolific ones, and David Chambers has recently joine
28.
by CrossEye 12y ago
For JS people wanting to learn FP, I'd recommend Allonge first. For FP people wanting to see how they can use JS in and FP manner, Fogus' Functional Javascript is a good book, and it's not a bad second book for the JS crowd.
29.
by CrossEye 12y ago
(Author of that talk (and co-author of Ramda) here. Your perf test only times the parsing of the function -- not exactly fair.
30.
Choosing simple APIs over flexible ones(fr.umio.us)
2 points by CrossEye 12y ago|0 comments

More ›