On 8/21/13 12:03 AM, Tim Smart wrote:
> Sorry, one more time: https://gist.github.com/tim-smart/6290338
>
> A simple state object makes a heap of difference in terms of code
> nesting. I'm not too sure if it has performance implications.
Hey Tim, why don't use waterfall from async to accomplish t
Sorry, one more time: https://gist.github.com/tim-smart/6290338
A simple state object makes a heap of difference in terms of code
nesting. I'm not too sure if it has performance implications.
On 21 August 2013 16:28, Tim Smart wrote:
> One other rule that I use a lot, is a state object:
>
>
>
>
One other rule that I use a lot, is a state object:
On 21 August 2013 07:11, Mark Hahn wrote:
> We are down to just opinions so I'll shut up now.
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Kelley
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not going to remove mention of the fact that coffee-script does not
>> suppor
We are down to just opinions so I'll shut up now.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Kelley wrote:
> I'm not going to remove mention of the *fact* that coffee-script does not
> support function hoisting, which is the *main suggestion *of the style
> guide. Your "only algorithm change" destr
I'm not going to remove mention of the *fact* that coffee-script does not
support function hoisting, which is the *main suggestion *of the style
guide. Your "only algorithm change" destroys the ability to put
"synchronous code" first, followed by purely a list of function
declarations, which is
> I meant to show that applying this pattern without knowing what it
actually does can lead to cases where it simply doesn't work.
Of course if someone doesn't apply the pattern correctly it won't work.
This is true for all patterns. There is nothing inherently dangerous about
this one.
I don't
Did you read the examples I provided ?
Of course the code you posted works.
I meant to show that applying this pattern without knowing what it actually
does can lead to cases where it simply doesn't work.
OF COURSE, doing things without knowing how they actualy do is stupid
anyway... so :)
On M
Agree, totally.
I idea is there has no callback, but function object (or closure, or
block), simple and stupid, and natural.
--
wenlin
在 2013年8月17日星期六UTC+8下午1时53分26秒，Andrew Kelley写道：
>
> I wrote this article as a response to all the recent callback hate:
>
> http://andrewkelley.me/post/js-callb
The real issue regarding callbacks in my mind is when you have to deal with
errors.
Its just a ridiculous pain to check for errors everywhere. I got to the
point where I have to use promises, just to be able to use that fail
handler.
Really, if you stop to think about it, A LOT of time, you s
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:36:47 PM UTC-6, Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> start = -> setTimeout cb1, 1000; console.log Date.now()
> cb1 = -> setTimeout cb2, 1000; console.log Date.now()
> cb2 = -> console.log Date.now()
>
> start()
>
> ...
> Does anyone appreciate this pattern? It is like the pattern de
> I said the code I posted wasn't working on coffeescript. But yours does
in certain cases.
The actual code I posted always works. The coding pattern I am suggesting
always works. It wouldn't be very useful otherwise.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github
My opinion on coffeescript, for what it's worth, is that I find it hard to
understand without knowing what it compiles to.
On Saturday, 17 August 2013 07:53:26 UTC+2, Andrew Kelley wrote:
>
> I wrote this article as a response to all the recent callback hate:
>
> http://andrewkelley.me/post/js-ca
To be clear.
I said the code I posted wasn't working on coffeescript. But yours does in
certain cases.
coffeescript:
myThing.onEvent myHandler
myHandler = ->
^ This works, assuming the given event will be emitted some time in the
future, once the call stack has unfolded.
coffeescript:
myColle
for one I'm using it and happy with it
On 19/08/13 02:37, Mark Hahn wrote:
I agree with everyone, although I don't think it is a hack. I'm very
happy that we all understand each other now.
I just wanted to put this option out there. There seemed to be a
general consensus that this wasn't p
I agree with everyone, although I don't think it is a hack. I'm very happy
that we all understand each other now.
I just wanted to put this option out there. There seemed to be a general
consensus that this wasn't possible in coffeescript and I wanted to provide
this counter-opinion.
I do feel
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> Yes, I know it isn't hoisting. I never claimed it was. I'm just saying
(over and over) that callbacks can call the functions while going downwards
in the file. This is how I code everything.
So that's the key.
Coffeescript requires a certa
Mark, I think the point everyone is trying to make is that with regular
JavaScript, this "start()" thing is *not* necessary, but with CoffeeScript
it is... essentially, this "start()" mechanism is a hack for CS's lack of
function hoisting.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Mark Hahn wrote:
> Yes
Yes, I know it isn't hoisting. I never claimed it was. I'm just saying
(over and over) that callbacks can call the functions while going downwards
in the file. This is how I code everything.
Here is a more detailed example. Note how readable it is when the control
flows downward, just like syn
That is calling a function that is defined in an upper context. It IS
defined before the call, as the body of start does not run until the last
line. That is NOT hoisting, that is a result of Javascript exposing the
upper context by memory reference rather copying the memory at the time of
defining
I know coffeescript functions don't hoist. I've been coding in nothing but
coffeescript for almost three years. Hoisting *is* needed to call a
definition that hasn't been encountered yet in time. But hoisting is *not*
needed to call a function defined further down in the file. It's the
differen
Also Ryan Dahl once outlined a single rule to avoid callback hell.
1. Set your editor column limit to 80.
On Saturday, 17 August 2013 07:53:26 UTC+2, Andrew Kelley wrote:
>
> I wrote this article as a response to all the recent callback hate:
>
> http://andrewkelley.me/post/js-callback-organizati
Point being,
there is no way to make coffeescript generate hoisted function statements.
It only generates assignments with function expressions.
On Saturday, 17 August 2013 07:53:26 UTC+2, Andrew Kelley wrote:
>
> I wrote this article as a response to all the recent callback hate:
>
> http://andr
Perfect approach! I'm going to start using it, thanks!
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 2:53:26 AM UTC-3, Andrew Kelley wrote:
>
> I wrote this article as a response to all the recent callback hate:
>
> http://andrewkelley.me/post/js-callback-organization.html
>
> It contains:
>
>- Acknowledgement
23 matches
Mail list logo
