Comments on: Finding ‘send’ in JavaScript

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:49:02 +0000

Well, I must say to be very disappointed in the social intelligence some of the commenters have displayed here…
Not all people reading this blog actually program professionally in javascript. People who do other things might just be interested in javascript and related technologies and not have all the insights a pro can have in this area.
Posts like this can invite the non-godly javascript programmers into reading this blog and gain interest in javascript.
I find Ajaxian the best javascript blog around and I don’t mind occasionally seeing posts like this one. I see it more as a good reminder of what a liberal language Javascript is.

By: K9

K9 — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:28:11 +0000

Absolutely right mxt, but my point is that if you just had “while” or just had “do…while” you could make up for the lack of the other in a couple seconds. On the other hand, javascript’s ability to do “send” is a more significant language feature. So having a post about “do…while” would indeed be silly, whereas a post about “send” is a post about the power of javascript.

By: mxt

mxt — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:57:39 +0000

Well since these comments keep going on and as they do so get into the more basics of coding it’s not quite true that “the difference between â€œwhileâ€ and â€œdoâ€¦whileâ€ is insignificant and purely about convenience”. A do/while loop is intended for AT LEAST ONE iteration whereas a while loop MAY NOT HAVE ANY ( 0 or more) iterations.

By: K9

K9 — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:57:39 +0000

Tio, i=i+1 is not equivalent to i++. It’s equivalent to ++i, and there’s a difference there. I guess you’re still learning javascript too?

Michael, the difference between “while” and “do…while” is insignificant and purely about convenience, whereas “send” relies on more important features of javascript.

By: Wade Harrell

Wade Harrell — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:22:42 +0000

It does seem there are a growing number of poorly researched articles showing up on Ajaxian. I would suggest that if you are to maintain credibility in the community that posts like this need to show that some research was done on the topic. With an opener like “Ola Bini found send in JavaScript” there is an implication that nobody documented this before.

If Ajaxian stepped up and did some homework, like many of the commentators, posting links to other sites that cover the same material, then there would be less hostility. I do not think the issue is so much with what some see as basic knowledge as it is with the presentation of that knowledge being â€œfoundâ€ by a single source. The article â€˜A Cheaky Way to Style an input type=â€fileâ€â€™ suffered from the same lack of research and implied â€œdiscoveryâ€.

This site has become a resource for many, and the expectations are higher than of an individualâ€™s blog. A few minutes with a search engine, saving the readers from doing it themselves, would be greatly appreciated.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:08:28 +0000

Noone is making fun of Ola. The ridicule is aimed at the Ajaxian editor.

By: andrija

andrija — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:40:52 +0000

I didn’t know you can do this. Thanx for posting =)

By: Max Steenbergen

Max Steenbergen — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:00:38 +0000

While this may be obvious to the more experienced developers, who perhaps are the biggest group of Ajaxian-visitors, it is not that obvious for people like myself: beginners, guys/girls struggling to get to grips with JS.
Saying this is basic JS knowledge (which it might be, I don’t know) is one thing; making Ola’s “discovery” ridiculous is another.

By: Tio Malandra

Tio Malandra — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:10:14 +0000

I found a great approach:
i = i + 1 can be rewritten as i++ .
Cool!

By: Michael Geary

Michael Geary — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:53:30 +0000

“Ola needed ‘send’ and that taught him about functions as objects, objects as hashtables, and ‘(‘ as a function invokation operator.”

Indeed, and I think it’s great that people are blogging about their experiences in learning JavaScript.

But is it really the mission of Ajaxian to chronicle people’s discoveries of things like “you can use parentheses to call a function” and “object['name'] is the same as object.name”?

If it is, so be it. I’m not an Ajaxian, and it’s their blog and their choice of content. It just seems a bit like running an article on the difference between while(){} and do{}while().

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:48:57 +0000

Next up: The basic arithmetic operators! All four of them! Plus bonus chapter on overriding precedence with parens! All secrets revealed!

I am so glad ajaxian follows the cutting edge.

By: Georg Miller

Georg Miller — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:32:58 +0000

What we still need is getter and setter to be supported in all browser

By: beppu

beppu — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:37:30 +0000

Now if only he could find the equivalent of method_missing …..

By: jimbob

jimbob — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:01:50 +0000

I’m happy to see that, finally, developers are “discovering” that javascript is actually a wonderfully powerful language. Yes, this is 101 in terms of theory, but the point (for me) is this: the powerful OO architecture of JS allows nested subclasses, accessible if necessary via “arrays”, and it doesn’t take much to see how this kind of thing makes for a nicely encapsulated and well organized system. As “web applications” are strange in that they mix brute stringish stuff like html and form data with programming languages — the reason that eval() continues, unfortunately — I hope that more people build using these techniques, instead of the rather ubiquitous silly javascript that spawns from lack of knowledge. This post hopefully has slapped a few brains into awareness.

By: Andrea Giammarchi

Andrea Giammarchi — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:23:29 +0000

document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0] ... ({false:function(w){alert(w)},true:function(){return this}})['b' in {'a':1,'b':1}]()[!1]("it's just JavaScript")

By: K9

K9 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:13:42 +0000

Oops filled in the form wrong, i don’t actually own K9.com…

By: K9

K9 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:10:51 +0000

The reason that this is an interesting discovery for many (I know I just discovered it myself a few weeks ago) is that while javascript has a C/Java-like syntax, and many approach it from C /C++/C#/Java backgrounds, javascript is more expressive than those languages in many ways.

As for “reading a manual”, that’s a pretty sad and ineffective way to learn a language, for me at least. I find the only way for me to really appreciate a dimension of expressiveness in a language is for me to need and use it in a practical situation.

Ola needed “send” and that taught him about functions as objects, objects as hashtables, and “(” as a function invokation operator.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:45:41 +0000

Wow! didn’t know ajaxian.com was frequented by such smart people that know every single feature and trick about JS (maybe everything in the world) that find this article useless and an insult to their fabulous minds…

Bini must be a little bit retarded (just like me) to find this article interesting, whats next? JRuby? lol, what a stupid guy….

By: chenggn

chenggn — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:10:45 +0000

There are many undocumented things in JavaScript and CSS like this! But I don’t really know this one before, thanks!

By: Pete Forde

Pete Forde — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:18:24 +0000

I had a similar moment of a-ha! a few months back:

http://rethink.unspace.ca/2007/6/13/javascript-is-not-widely-understood

I’m so glad that Ajaxian isn’t just announcements of new versions of Google Gears, personally. We’re all in this together, and nobody except Alex Russell or John Resig can likely claim to keep every nuance of the language in their heads at once. I say, keep the discoveries coming.. I guarantee that lots of people will learn from this post.