A re-introduction to JavaScript

I believe the question marks are intended to be here: p?title=A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript?diff=28751&oldid=28749. --Nickolay 03:29, 30 March 2006 (PST)

Needs Technical Review

Technical review needed for memory leak workaround example in Memory leaks subsection. —IgorKitsa 01 September 2010

RE: “This page has been flagged... Technical Review... inaccurate...”

Consider the wiki model, widely propagated by Wikipedia: shouldn't the inaccuracy warning (re: this page has been flagged...) appear at the top of the page (or section); before any content (i.e. as a label) to warn the reader that the content is in question as possibly inaccurate, requiring revision, or otherwise potentially incorrect. In the current state, 2011-01-14, it reads rather as an afterthought. --tweedle 2011-01-14

JavaScript is NOT good for unicode

Unicode has far more than 16 bits worth of codes. This is especially true now that emoji have finally been added to Unicode which are in common use by most Japanese.  This means JavaScript's unicode support is just as broken as nearly every other language.

Technical misinformation

Section "Arrays" - suggestions for iterating

The two suggested alternatives not only make the code far more unreadable but also isn't based on any messurable benefits. I did a simple test (https://gist.github.com/1780215) for the common syntax and these two suggestions and found almost no improvement in performance.

Classic for loop
For loop with length cached 473ms
For loop with short signature 468ms

Considering that the last example can easily break your loop at least it should be removed. That is not the way to build robust applications.

Document Tags and Contributors

 Last updated by: jswisher,