Zirak

// hi, this explains the current bot architecture. comment pl0x.

// this is the object which the bot sees (and all listeners/commands receive)
var message = {
    text : 'message text sans any invocation stuff',
    user : {
        name : '',
        id : '',
        reputation : '',
        isOwner : function () { /*...*/ }

rlemon

/*
 *  stepper pins
 */
int Pin0 = 2;
int Pin1 = 3;
int Pin2 = 4;
int Pin3 = 5;

int timeout = 1;

rlemon

Room Talks

Okay so let's try this out.

I'm curating a list of potential speakers to give short (5-30 minute) talks on Google Hangouts (later exported to youtube) for the benefit of the room.

Think about it, if you feel like you could teach anyone in the room about anything (React, JS, Math, how to change your own engine oil, literally anything) please comment with what you could potentially speak on. Once a list is made we can (at your own leisure of course) start to actually schedule the talks and make this happen.

100% of your own good will, 50% because we are awesome (someone needs to do a talk on percentages for me).

ryankinal

Official Documents

• [CSS2 Spec][1] - the official CSS 2.1 spec from the w3c
• [Default Stylesheet for HTML4][15] - W3C suggestion for default styles
• [CSS Snapshot 2010][2] - The current state of CSS (all versions)
• [CSS Compatibility and Internet Explorer][16] - Compatibility tables for Internet Explorer

Tutorials

• [MDN Beginner CSS Tutorial][3] - An excellent way to start learning CSS

rlemon

//when you do this:
elem.innerHTML = 'I want to set elem\'s text!';

//you're calling the browser's html parser. why so surprised? innerHTML takes an html string and turns it into DOM elements.
//you can't do that without calling an html parser.
//after the browser is done parsing your (invalid) html, it sees that it only contains text and _assumes_ you just want text and puts it into
//a text node.
//now what? it empties the element out of everything and appends the new text node. it then re-parses, re-flows and re-paints your entire page
// (since your innerHTML call can do many other things, and affect everything else in the page)

Raynos

jQuery

Related: [Why you don't need jQuery as an abstraction][2]

$ itself is a god object. Everything goes on it. The standard plugin / extension architecture that is recommended is to just bolt more methods on $ itself!

Surely this is bad. An example would be how we have both $.load which is overloaded to do completely different things. If they were on two separate sensibly named objects $Container.load and $EventTarget.load. Personally I would deprecate the latter in favour of .on('load'

The animation should be it's own little modular thing, not bolted onto $. Ajax should be it's own little modular thing, not bolted onto $

rlemon

http://stackoverflow.com/a/8417913/829835 [Class vs. ID - Readability]

rlemon

/*
█░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▀▀█
█░█▀█░█░░█░█░░█▀█▀█░█▀▀█░█▀▀█░░█▀▀█░█▀▀░█▀▀▀█░░░░█
█░█░█░█░░█░█░░█░█░█░█▀▀█░█░░█░░█░░█░█░░░█░░░█░░▀▀▀
▀░▀▀▀░▀░░▀▀▀░░▀░░░▀░▀░░▀░▀▀▀▀░░▀▀▀▀░▀░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░█░░
*/

ryankinal

The whole ID thing

There is a war going on. In comment threads and chat rooms, we are doing battle.

Here are the arguments against IDs:

• specificity wars
• strong coupling
• code reusability
• abstraction

rlemon

function loadScript(url, callback) {
    if(!url) {
        return;
    }
    callback = typeof callback == 'undefined' ? function(){} : callback;
    var script_elm = document.createElement('script');
    script_elm.src = url;
    script_elm.onreadystatechange = function() {
        if (this.readyState == 'complete') {
            callback.call();