Welcome to the Lounge

Marc Clifton wrote:

1) my bias to what I expect. I experience this with Python as well. Anything from differently named functions for string manipulation to the whole abortion called the DOM.

Marc Clifton wrote:

2) too many strings. $("#foo")

Marc Clifton wrote:

5) Standards hell: For example, single quote or double quote: $("#menu").jqxMenu('close');

Marc Clifton wrote:

var parentItemText = $($($("#projectTree1").jqxTree('getSelectedItem').parentElement).children("div")[1]).text();

Marc Clifton wrote:

Should I do that or not? Performance penalty vs. readability? Is it more readable? Will it confuse someone who has to maintain the code.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Why do I do this? So I can have a nice function named "getProjectId" that tells me exactly what is going on, without passing in a string and without writing the abortion that looks like this:

Marc Clifton wrote:

$('#lbProjects').jqxListBox('getSelectedItem').value;

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Clearly, you're looking at code written by a 5 year old that doesn't know anything about CSS selectors or jQuery.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

but the whole $($($($($('#omg'))))) thing can be avoided.

Marc Clifton wrote:

You're off by 50 years. And this is exactly why Javascript is so hard to learn. There are no (and no good) resources for how to do things other than SO, CP, and dubious forums by 3rd party vendors. Why? Because who the heck is going to write a book on how to do X when, given the multi-dimensional landscape of web development, describing where X is in this trans-dimensional space is pretty much impossible.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Granted, all my examples are related to using jQuery and 3rd party frameworks, but it's impossible to disentangle Javascript from those things when doing web development.

Marc Clifton wrote:

The content of the tree (a jqxwidget) is programatically generated and I haven't figured out a simpler way of getting the text (not to mention the freaking ID) of the parent for a selected node.

Marc Clifton wrote:

And heaven help me if I have to learn one of the Angular/React/etc/ frameworks that jqwidgets claims to support. More obfuscation on top of nebulous indirection.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Yup -- I'm an old fart.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

You reach an age where it's ok to laugh at stuff.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Liberally sprinkle code with // TODO: Kludge! and // TODO: There has to be a better way!

import React from 'react';
import {Link} from 'react-router';

class Layout extends React.Component {
   // this requires that the class fields and static properties plug-in is enabled
   static propTypes = {
      children: PropTypes.object.isRequired
   };

   render() {
      // returned JSX must be within parenthesis
      return (
         // class is a reserved word in JavaScript so we use className instead
         <div className="container-fluid">
            <p>header here and all</p>
            {this.props.children}
         </div>
      );
   }
};

export default Layout;

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

ust to give you an idea of where the web is headed,

Marc Clifton wrote:

On the other hand, I really don't want to.

Marc Clifton wrote:

Could you provide a translation? That is all but unintelligible.

grolarbear wrote:

I think you're conflating JS with web programming.

grolarbear wrote:

Lets not forget NodeJS baby!

grolarbear wrote:

These were all JQuery

Chris Maunder wrote:

Now explain closures and you'll have everyone halfway there.

Chris Maunder wrote:

And of course the obligatory WAT video whenever Javascript weirdness is raised.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

I have no idea why the object stuff in JavaScript turned out the way it did