livingston

Object.defineProperties(Object, {
    'extend': {
        'configurable': true,
        'enumerable': false,
        'value': function extend(what, wit) {
            var extObj, witKeys = Object.keys(wit);

            extObj = Object.keys(what).length ? Object.clone(what) : {};

            witKeys.forEach(function (key) {

Zren

/**
**   ____            _     ___  ___                  _          _ 
**  |  _ \          | |    |  \/  |                 | |        (_)
**  | | \ |__ _ _ __| | __ | .  . | ___  _ __   ___ | | __ __ _ _ 
**  | | | | _` | '__| |/ / | |\/| |/ _ \| '_ \ / _ \| |/ // _` | |
**  | |_/ /(_| | |  |   <  | |  | | (_) | | | | (_) |   <| (_| | |
**  |____/\__,_|_|  |_|\_\ \_|  |_/\___/|_| |_|\___/|_|\_\\__,_|_|
**                                                                
**      Quassel Theme
** 

briancavalier

//-------------------------------------------------------------
//
// Hypothesis:
//
// Promises/A is a Monad
//
// To be a Monad, it must provide at least:
// - A unit (aka return or mreturn) operation that creates a corresponding
//   monadic value from a non-monadic value.
// - A bind operation that applies a function to a monadic value

robotlolita

First and foremost, let's take a look at the following pieces of code. The first one is something you should be rather familiar with, and the second one is also a somewhat familiar idiom these days (at least in languages with higher-order functions):

// Example 1:
30 + 12

// Example 2:
xs.map(f)

datagrok

"Vendoring" is a vile anti-pattern

What is "vendoring"?

From a comment on StackOverflow:

Vendoring is the moving of all 3rd party items such as plugins, gems and even rails into the /vendor directory. This is one method for ensuring that all files are deployed to the production server the same as the dev environment.

The activity described above, on its own, is fine. It merely describes the deployment location for various resources in an application.

cfj

window.console.clog = function(log){
    var message = typeof log === 'object' ? '%cLooks like you\'re trying to log an ' : '%cLooks like you\'re trying to log a ',
        style = 'background:url(http://i.imgur.com/SErVs5H.png);padding:5px 15px 142px 19px;line-height:280px;';
    console.log.call(console, message + typeof log + '.', style);
};

rwaldron

Array.build

Originally conceived by Dave Herman, based on: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/pairs.html#%28def._%28%28lib._racket%2Fprivate%2Flist..rkt%29._build-list%29%29

Rationale

There is no easy way to create an array, of user defined length, containing values that are not undefined. Easily build range functionality ontop.

Prior Art

staltz

The introduction to Reactive Programming you've been missing

(by @andrestaltz)

---

This tutorial as a series of videos

If you prefer to watch video tutorials with live-coding, then check out this series I recorded with the same contents as in this article: Egghead.io - Introduction to Reactive Programming.

---

WebReflection

update

I've created a little repository that simply exposes the final utility as npm module.

It's called html-escaper

---

there is basically one rule only: do not ever replace one char after another if you are transforming a string into another.

ericelliott

Two Simple Changes to Simplify class

I'm not suggesting drastic action. I don't want to break backwards compatibility. I simply want to make the class feature more usable to a broader cross section of the community. I believe there is some low-hanging fruit that can be harvested to that end.

Imagine AutoMaker contained class Car, but the author wants to take advantage of prototypes to enable factory polymorphism in order to dynamically swap out implementation.

Stampit does something similar to this in order to supply information needed to inherit from composable factory functions, known as stamps.

This isn't the only way to achieve this, but it is a convenient way which is compatible with .call(), .apply(), and .bind().