kriszyp

var currentModule, defaultCompile = module.constructor.prototype._compile;
module.constructor.prototype._compile = function(content, filename){
  currentModule = this;
  try{
    return defaultCompile.call(this, content, filename);
  }
  finally {
    currentModule = null;
  }
};

gist:985918

function IntervalMonitor() {
        var intervals = [];

        this.start = function (callback, repeat) {
                var res = setInterval(callback, repeat);
                intervals.push(res);
                return res;
        };

        this.stop = function (item) {

isaacsanders

This is a post by Joel Spolsky. The original post is linked at the bottom.

This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer.

The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because "it was my idea," or because "I was more experienced" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you ju

TooTallNate

var net = require('net')

var sock = net.connect(1337)

process.stdin.pipe(sock)
sock.pipe(process.stdout)

sock.on('connect', function () {
  process.stdin.resume();
  process.stdin.setRawMode(true)

jpoehls

var cluster = require('cluster');

if (cluster.isWorker) {

  console.log('Worker ' + process.pid + ' has started.');

  // Send message to master process.
  process.send({msgFromWorker: 'This is from worker ' + process.pid + '.'})

  // Receive messages from the master process.

serby

var _ = require('underscore')
  , a = {
    1: { id: '1', name: 'a' },
    2: { id: '2', name: 'b' },
    3: { id: '3', name: 'c' }
  }
  , b = {
    2: { id: '2', name: 'b1' },
    3: { id: '3', name: 'c2' },
    4: { id: '4', name: 'd' }

bruth

var jsondiff = (function() {

    // Patch helper functions
    function getParent(paths, path) {
        return paths[path.substr(0, path.match(/\//g).length)];
    }

    // Checks if `obj` is an array or object
    function isContainer(obj) {
        return _.isArray(obj) || _.isObject(obj);

branneman

Better local require() paths for Node.js

Problem

When the directory structure of your Node.js application (not library!) has some depth, you end up with a lot of annoying relative paths in your require calls like:

const Article = require('../../../../app/models/article');

Those suck for maintenance and they're ugly.

Possible solutions

dceejay

# Dockerfile for Node-RED - pulls latest master code from git
# Use the node.js v4 LTS engine
FROM node:4-slim
MAINTAINER ceejay

RUN mkdir -p /root/.node-red
WORKDIR /root/.node-red
 
# download latest stable node-red
RUN npm install -g --unsafe-perm node-red

erossignon

// node --inspect-brk -r ts-node/register -r source-map-support test_server.ts
import * as path from "path";
import * as fs from "fs";
import { promisify } from "util";
import * as child_process from "child_process";

import {
    makeApplicationUrn,
    OPCUAServer,
    OPCUAClient,