> Did my comments about prototypal inheritance and anonymous functions
> bring this up? That's what I was referring to btw. A date object is
> more of a generic thing that is reflective of my current needs in
> getting work done.
programming language these days. There are really bad parts to the
language, but they're manageable and outweighed by some of the truly
impressive things available to the programmer that I dearly miss when
working with other languages.
> After having learned about prototypal inheritance, and actually
> ridiculous that more programming languages do not implement it. It's
> also ridiculous that nobody taught it to me in college.
I agree. Being able to generate and modify robust objects in an ad-hoc
manner allows you to mix and remix code in really interesting ways
that are worth studying in an academic environment.
> the only thing that creates new scope is a function. Of course, I
> teaches good organizational practices. The only other painful thing
> would be differences amongst implementations... Then again, I'd
> has a lot more ambition.
previous versions of the language, but eliminates some of the uglier
parts of the language (the with keyword, etc). Unfortunately, because
it's syntax-compatible it doesn't offer a way to create new scopes
without creating a function.
>> On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:44 PM, Gary Johnson wrote:
>>> Howdy h4x0rs,
>>> Here's a great article (a bit old but still very relevant) by a CS
>>> Professor at Caltech which discusses many features of programming
>>> languages that make them good (or terrible) for building programs
>>> larger than a few hundred lines. Some very good stuff here, and I'd
>>> recommend it as fundamental reading for any of you who are still
>>> wondering about the differences between programming languages (yes,
>>> there are BIG differences).
>>> Happy hacking,
>>> P.S. Can one of you web guys add this link to the CSSA Resources