VictorTaelin

async/await is just the do-notation of the Promise monad

CertSimple just wrote a blog post arguing ES2017's async/await was the best thing to happen with JavaScript. I wholeheartedly agree.

In short, one of the (few?) good things about JavaScript used to be how well it handled asynchronous requests. This was mostly thanks to its Scheme-inherited implementation of functions and closures. That, though, was also one of its worst faults, because it led to the "callback hell", an seemingly unavoidable pattern that made highly asynchronous JS code almost unreadable. Many solutions attempted to solve that, but most failed. Promises almost did it, but failed too. Finally, async/await is here and, combined with Promises, it solves the problem for good. On this post, I'll explain why that is the case and trace a link between promises, async/await, the do-notation and monads.

First, let's illustrate the 3 styles by implementing

garybernhardt

This document has moved!

It's now here, in The Programmer's Compendium. The content is the same as before, but being part of the compendium means that it's actively maintained.

toranb

import Ember from 'ember';
import ajax from 'example/utilities/ajax';

var UsersRoute = Ember.Route.extend({
    redux: Ember.inject.service(),
    model() {
        var redux = this.get('redux');
        return ajax('/api/users', 'GET').then(response => redux.dispatch({type: 'DESERIALIZE_USERS', response: response}));
    }
});

idibidiart

Building a Maintainable, Agile Architecture for Realtime, Transactional Apps

A maintainable application architecture requires that the UI only contain the rendering logic and execute queries and mutations against the underlying data model on the server. A maintainable architecture must not contain any logic for composing "app state" on the client as that would necessarily embed business logic in the client. App state should be persisted to the database and the client projection of it should be composed in the mid tier, and refreshed as mutations occur on the server (and after network interruption) for a highly interactive, realtime UX.

With GraphQL we are able to define an easy-to-change application-level data schema on the server that captures the types and relationships in our data, and wiring it to data sources via resolvers that leverage our db's own query language (or data-oriented, uniform service APIs) to resolve client-specified "queries" and "mutations" against the schema.

We use GraphQL to dyn

Avaq

const I  = x => x
const K  = x => y => x
const A  = f => x => f (x)
const T  = x => f => f (x)
const W  = f => x => f (x) (x)
const C  = f => y => x => f (x) (y)
const B  = f => g => x => f (g (x))
const S  = f => g => x => f (x) (g (x))
const S_ = f => g => x => f (g (x)) (x)
const S2 = f => g => h => x => f (g (x)) (h (x))

jamesarosen

TL;DR

In Ember, always use {{...}}, not {{{...}}}. Use Ember.String.htmlSafe as necessary in JavaScript (usually in a component) to mark markup as HTML-safe. Never pass user-entered content directly to Ember.String.htmlSafe.

Details

Ember has great XSS protection built in. The HTMLBars templating library will automatically run any interpolations through htmlEscape for you. So

Muzietto

/*
	SCLEXE - single-country libphonenumber executable
	Author: Marco Faustinelli (contacts@faustinelli.net)
	Web: http://faustinelli.net/
	     http://faustinelli.wordpress.com/
	Version: 1.0
	The MIT License - Copyright (c) 2015 SCLEXE Project
*/

var fs = require('fs');

paulirish

What forces layout / reflow

All of the below properties or methods, when requested/called in JavaScript, will trigger the browser to synchronously calculate the style and layout*. This is also called reflow or layout thrashing, and is common performance bottleneck.

Generally, all APIs that synchronously provide layout metrics will trigger forced reflow / layout. Read on for additional cases and details.

Element APIs

Getting box metrics

• elem.offsetLeft, elem.offsetTop, elem.offsetWidth, elem.offsetHeight, elem.offsetParent

chantastic

Hi Nicholas,

I saw you tweet about JSX yesterday. It seemed like the discussion devolved pretty quickly but I wanted to share our experience over the last year. I understand your concerns. I've made similar remarks about JSX. When we started using it Planning Center, I led the charge to write React without it. I don't imagine I'd have much to say that you haven't considered but, if it's helpful, here's a pattern that changed my opinion:

The idea that "React is the V in MVC" is disingenuous. It's a good pitch but, for many of us, it feels like in invitation to repeat our history of coupled views. In practice, React is the V and the C. Dan Abramov describes the division as Smart and Dumb Components. At our office, we call them stateless and container components (view-controllers if we're Flux). The idea is pretty simple: components can't

tmcw

Software is layered.

Documentation is not. If your documentation states

Run npm install foo to install this module

It is really saying