This is a guest post by Jake Schumacher & Jed Hurt
We're working on an ambitious doc called App: The Human Story. With a crowdfunded budget, we have to find ways to stretch every dollar.
The new breed of baseplates-that-double-as-shoulder-rigs is incredibly versatile, comfortable to use, and not very easy on your wallet. Don’t fret though. With a little DIY spirit, you can make your own for a fraction of the price.
Let’s start by defining the three features we're after:
| function poetry(packet) { | |
| _.pipeline(_.accessor('seed'), doit)(JSON.parse(packet)); | |
| } | |
| var t = 0; | |
| var n = 0; | |
| var paths = 0; | |
| var above='brow,mist,shape,layer,the crag,stone,forest,height'.split(','); | |
| var below='flow,basin,shape,vein,rippling,stone,cove,rock'.split(','); |
#Restangular
Restangular is an AngularJS service that simplifies common GET, DELETE, and UPDATE requests with a minimum of client code.
We arrive at this point with hopefully a very healthy, solid understanding of how scope works.
We turn our attention to an incredibly important, but persistently elusive, almost mythological, part of the language: closure. If you have followed our discussion of lexical scope thus far, the payoff is that closure is going to be, largely, anti-climatic, almost self-obvious. There's a man behind the wizard's curtain, and we're about to see him. No, his name is not Crockford!
If however you have nagging questions about lexical scope, now would be a good time to go back and review Chapter 2 before proceeding.
In Chapters 4 and 5, we addressed the [[Prototype]] mechanism in detail, and why it's confusing and inappropriate (despite countless attempts for nearly two decades) to label it "class" or "inheritance". We trudged through not only the fairly verbose syntax (.prototype littering the code), but the various gotchas (like surprising .constructor resolution or ugly pseudo-polymorphic syntax). We explored variations of the "mixin" approach, which many people use to attempt to smoothe over such rough areas.
It's a common reaction at this point to wonder why it has to be so complex to do something seemingly so simple. Now that we've pulled back the curtain and seen just how dirty it all gets, it's not a surprise that most JS developers never dive this deep, and instead relegate such mess to a "class" library to handle it for them.
I hope if you're reading these "You Don't Know JS" books, you're not content to just gloss ov
In the Chapters 3 and 4, we mentioned the [[Prototype]] chain several times, but haven't said what exactly it is. We will now examine prototypes in detail.
**Note: All of the attempts to emulate class-copy behavior, as described previously in Chapter 4, labeled as variations of "mixins", completely circument the [[Prototype]] chain mechanism we examine here in this chapter.
Objects in JavaScript have an internal property, denoted in the specification as [[Prototype]], which is simply a reference to another object. Almost all objects are given a non-null value for this property, at the time of their creation.
In the Chapters 3 and 4, we mentioned the [[Prototype]] chain several times, but haven't said what exactly it is. We will now examine prototypes in detail.
**Note: All of the attempts to emulate class-copy behavior, as described previously in Chapter 4, labeled as variations of "mixins", completely circument the [[Prototype]] chain mechanism we examine here in this chapter.
Objects in JavaScript have an internal property, denoted in the specification as [[Prototype]], which is simply a reference to another object. Almost all objects are given a non-null value for this property, at the time of their creation.
In Chapters 4 and 5, we addressed the [[Prototype]] mechanism in detail, and why it's confusing and inappropriate (despite countless attempts for nearly two decades) to label it "class" or "inheritance". We trudged through not only the fairly verbose syntax (.prototype littering the code), but the various gotchas (like surprising .constructor resolution or ugly pseudo-polymorphic syntax). We explored variations of the "mixin" approach, which many people use to attempt to smoothe over such rough areas.
It's a common reaction at this point to wonder why it has to be so complex to do something seemingly so simple. Now that we've pulled back the curtain and seen just how dirty it all gets, it's not a surprise that most JS developers never dive this deep, and instead relegate such mess to a "class" library to handle it for them.
I hope if you're reading these "You Don't Know JS" books, you're not content to just gloss ov
In Chapter 1, we discarded various misconceptions about this and learned instead that this is a binding made for each function invocation, based entirely on its call-site (how the function is called).
To understand this binding, we have to understand the call-site: the location in code where a function is called (not where it's declared). We must inspect the call-site to answer the question: what's this this a reference to?
Finding the call-site is generally: "go locate where a function is called from", but it's not always that easy, as certain coding patterns can obscure the true call-site.
