JSLint Reports on last 2 Production Versions of jQuery
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Entry Proposal: What is (function(){ /*...*/ })() ?
Next: FAQ Topic - What is Ajax? (2010-03-01)
From: Gregor Kofler on 2 Mar 2010 04:28 lorlarz meinte: > I am a long time JavaScripter Then it shouldn't be a problem to interpret the JSLint output yourself. Why did you start this thrad? Gregor -- http://www.gregorkofler.com
From: David Mark on 2 Mar 2010 04:43 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> lorlarz wrote: >>> On Mar 1, 6:56 pm, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 02/03/10 01:32, lorlarz wrote: >>>> > [...] > >> "We ignore the following warnings from JSLint: >> >> "Expected an identifier and instead saw 'undefined' (a reserved word)." > > That JSLint Error is completely wrong. `undefined` is a property of the > global object, not a reserved word. It is not an error and should not be > flagged as an error. > Forgot to mention that the other argument passed with it is called "window" and references the window object (of course). ISTM that I pointed out years ago that a local reference to this mother of all host objects is a very bad idea (due to the obvious potential for circular references and the resulting memory leaks in IE). JSLint can't help them there, but I tried.
From: Richard Cornford on 2 Mar 2010 06:23 David Mark wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: <snip> >> My favorite one is Dojo >> `it instanceof Array || typeof it == "array"`. > > Buffoons. I tried to tell them that was ridiculous, but they > just carped about providing "proof" <snip> Proof of what exactly? That there are no ECMA 262 conforming language implementations where - typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string "array"? Which doesn't need proving as that is required by "ECMA 262 conforming language implementation". That there have never been any web browser script language implementations based on JavaScript, JScript or/and ECMAScript where - typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string "array"? Why would they care, as they are not even attempting to support all possible browsers, only a known set where the situation can be objectively verified? What is it about the - typeof x == 'array' - mistake that makes it so hard to recognise? That if so many have made it there must be something in it? Unquestioning trust in the people they copied their mistakes from? Richard.
From: David Mark on 2 Mar 2010 08:08 Richard Cornford wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: > <snip> >>> My favorite one is Dojo >>> `it instanceof Array || typeof it == "array"`. >> >> Buffoons. I tried to tell them that was ridiculous, but they >> just carped about providing "proof" > <snip> > > Proof of what exactly? That's what I said, but the "cutting edge JS hackers" couldn't come up with anything more than griping. > > That there are no ECMA 262 conforming language implementations where - > typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string > "array"? Which doesn't need proving as that is required by "ECMA 262 > conforming language implementation". Of course. But I don't think they have read the specs. In their minds, there might be a browser out there that does this because that dubious comparison must have been included for some reason. > > That there have never been any web browser script language > implementations based on JavaScript, JScript or/and ECMAScript where - > typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string > "array"? Why would they care, as they are not even attempting to support > all possible browsers, only a known set where the situation can be > objectively verified? In short, they are nuts. I don't know how else to explain their behavior in this regard (among many others). Their latest and "greatest" Website, which will ostensibly spur new interest in their project uses jQuery (1.2x no less) for God's sake. Another example is that when somebody posted some random numbers that seemed (to them) to indicate that undeclared globals were "faster", a chain reaction started that came within an inch of committing changes that would un-declare all of their globals. (!) They were all very hyped up about this "breakthrough", which was seen as a counterpoint to the various speed improvements I introduced in my branch (which they sullenly dismissed by posting still more random numbers). I finally headed that one off at the Trac-level by pointing out that the aforementioned random numbers didn't indicate that at all (as well as the fact that using undeclared variables was insane and could easily lead to major problems in one of the browsers they profess to care about). > > What is it about the - typeof x == 'array' - mistake that makes it so > hard to recognise? That if so many have made it there must be something > in it? Unquestioning trust in the people they copied their mistakes from? > Probably. Judging from their rate of adoption of my many suggestions (they are actually starting to scavenge some of them now, copying and pasting without any real understanding), they trust unknown incompetents more than they trust me. Like I said, nuts.
From: David Mark on 2 Mar 2010 08:19
David Mark wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: >> <snip> >>>> My favorite one is Dojo >>>> `it instanceof Array || typeof it == "array"`. >>> Buffoons. I tried to tell them that was ridiculous, but they >>> just carped about providing "proof" >> <snip> >> >> Proof of what exactly? > > That's what I said, but the "cutting edge JS hackers" couldn't come up > with anything more than griping. > >> That there are no ECMA 262 conforming language implementations where - >> typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string >> "array"? Which doesn't need proving as that is required by "ECMA 262 >> conforming language implementation". > > Of course. But I don't think they have read the specs. In their minds, > there might be a browser out there that does this because that dubious > comparison must have been included for some reason. > >> That there have never been any web browser script language >> implementations based on JavaScript, JScript or/and ECMAScript where - >> typeof - operation applied to an Array object results in the string >> "array"? Why would they care, as they are not even attempting to support >> all possible browsers, only a known set where the situation can be >> objectively verified? > > In short, they are nuts. I don't know how else to explain their > behavior in this regard (among many others). Their latest and > "greatest" Website, which will ostensibly spur new interest in their > project uses jQuery (1.2x no less) for God's sake. > > Another example is that when somebody posted some random numbers that > seemed (to them) to indicate that undeclared globals were "faster", a > chain reaction started that came within an inch of committing changes > that would un-declare all of their globals. (!) They were all very > hyped up about this "breakthrough", which was seen as a counterpoint to > the various speed improvements I introduced in my branch (which they > sullenly dismissed by posting still more random numbers). > > I finally headed that one off at the Trac-level by pointing out that the > aforementioned random numbers didn't indicate that at all (as well as > the fact that using undeclared variables was insane and could easily > lead to major problems in one of the browsers they profess to care about). > They had actually closed the ticket. I had to re-open and invalidate it (more than once). Looking back, I should have left them to self-destruct. They are bitchy about any suggestions from me to this day. They just don't like to hear from people who expose too many mistakes. After all, if there are that many mistakes to be found, it might call into "question" their self-described "expert" status. They seem to care far more about their public image (and egos) than their users. http://bugs.dojotoolkit.org/ticket/10174 Don't read it while eating, drinking and/or operating a motor vehicle. :) |