A re-introduction to JavaScript

  • Revision slug: Talk:JavaScript/A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript
  • Revision title: A re-introduction to JavaScript
  • Revision id: 52946
  • Created:
  • Creator: Slosd
  • Is current revision? No
  • Comment 108 words added

Revision Content

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

This page is full of errors

Like this: reference to undefined name 'syntax' Exception of type 'MindTouch.Deki.Script.Runtime.DekiScriptUndefinedNameException' was thrown.

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
486ms
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.

Revision Source

<p>I believe the question marks are intended to be here: <a class="external" href="/p?title=A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript?diff=28751&amp;oldid=28749" title="p?title=A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript?diff=28751&amp;oldid=28749">p?title=A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript?diff=28751&amp;oldid=28749</a>. --<a href="/User:Nickolay" title="User:Nickolay">Nickolay</a> 03:29, 30 March 2006 (PST)</p>
<h2>Needs Technical Review</h2>
<p>Technical review needed for memory leak workaround example in <a href="/en/JavaScript/A_re-introduction_to_JavaScript#Memory_leaks" title="en/JavaScript/A re-introduction to JavaScript#Memory leaks">Memory leaks</a> subsection. —<a href="/User:IgorKitsa" rel="custom nofollow">IgorKitsa</a> 01 September 2010</p>
<h3>RE: “This page has been flagged... Technical Review... inaccurate...”</h3>
<p>Consider the wiki model, widely propagated by Wikipedia: shouldn't the <em>inaccuracy</em> 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. --<a href="/User:stanley.tweedle" rel="custom nofollow">tweedle</a> 2011-01-14</p>
<h2>This page is full of errors</h2>
<p>Like this: <span style="color:#ff0000;">reference to undefined name 'syntax' Exception of type 'MindTouch.Deki.Script.Runtime.DekiScriptUndefinedNameException' was thrown.</span></p>
<h2>JavaScript is NOT good for unicode</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<h2>Technical misinformation</h2>
<h3>Section "Arrays" - suggestions for iterating</h3>
<p>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 (<a class=" link-https" href="https://gist.github.com/1780215" title="https://gist.github.com/1780215">https://gist.github.com/1780215)</a> for the common syntax and these two suggestions and found almost no improvement in performance.</p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="table-layout: fixed; width: 100%;"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <div class="logRow logRow-log"><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">Classic for loop</span></div> </td> <td><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">486ms</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">For loop with length cached</span></td> <td><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">473ms</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">For loop with short signature</span></td> <td><span class="objectBox objectBox-text ">468ms</span></td> </tr> </tbody>
</table>
<p>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.</p>
Revert to this revision