rwaldron

That's correct, but only half correct :)

Johnny-Five programs can run on board any SBC that runs Linux and can support Node.js. For those platforms, GPIO and serial bus interfaces are interacted with directly; examples include Raspberry Pi, Intel Edison (+Galileo 1 & 2, Joule), Tessel 2, Linino and pcDuino

"linting" is subjective, preferential—not required.

Python built linting into the language itself and it's super annoying.

> behaviour is well defined.

True, and we could go one step further: it's unambiguously defined, with invariant rules that can be used to prove a conformant implementation.

> Looks like it's been fixed in ES5

That was published 9 years ago.

9999999999999999 > Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER === true

JavaScript numbers are IEEE754 double precision floating point format.

PL = Programming Language

Actually, 4 years ago and then again 3 years ago I said it was a total disaster. I have mountains of email reports from an audit of the project.

You're conflating "JavaScript the programming language" with "DOM, the awful sack of shit".

Don't do that.

I absolutely agree with this. Several years ago I did the same exercise with Zepto, which definitively disproved its compatibility claim.

Yes, performance comparisons, but those could've been measurements of no-op versions of functions by the same name.

There isn't a single test for this project. How can its claims of jQuery-alike-ness be supported?

Tests, or it doesn't exist.

If Facebook made use of smart OCAP practices, none of that would be possible. Use of object identity as a "security key" would prevent code that doesn't have access to the "key" object from being successful.

Boooorrrrring.

Open Wash.

Everyone loves a bit of HN-google-twitter juice for publishing some controversial anti-jQuery diatribe.

yawn

No, they mean Node.bind(), it's a Polymer proposal.

> To be perfectly honest, I think it's a bit of a reach to suggest that I "probably need jQuery" because strict mode limitations caused problems within jQuery once upon a time (like, isn't that basically jQuery fixing a problem it introduced?),

No, the point was that it highlights an issue that exists with some browser.

Also, I didn't name this thread, notice in my gist it doesn't say anything about needing anything. I was merely presenting facts.

> I'd be surprised if none of the others were at all questionable.

If you'd like to spend the time going through each one of them with me, we can meet on IRC and work through them all. We might even be productive in eliminating some unnecessary code if we find issues that no longer exist in a browser's current and last current release. Let me know?

To your last point, I again, I didn't name or post this thread. Did you read what I wrote in the gist? I think you can't really argue with this:

"The following links will bring you to line in the jQuery (current master, is a 2.1.x build with no oldIE-specific code) source above. The line (and probably adjacent lines) will identify some existing browser issue that jQuery must account for when providing an API for consistent browser/DOM programming semantics."

That's all I said. So are we square? Wanna work on these with me? I'm a nice guy, I promise.

I wasn't being snarky, I was making playful jokes :P

MooTools modified built-in objects in future hostile ways. Do you miss that too?

So... browserify is like http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131111220942/harrypo...?

> These aren't really what the author claims.

As the author, I can assure you they are what I claim them to be: Points in the source code that identify some issue in some browser.

> The first two are actually the same thing,

Whoops! I thought I had removed the first one. Thanks for the bug report. The second is true, we received bug reports when we used we had issues with "use strict" in Firefox. I removed the first one anyway.

> The third is just noting that a jQuery function doesn't work in some contexts.

Wrong, it's a note about IE reporting the wrong value.

> The fourth and fifth (which, like #1, are two lines from the same comment) are just documenting a try/catch block because something jQuery is doing might throw an exception.

Because a particular browser has abnormal behaviour.

> The seventh is just an attribute named "support".

I thought removed that. It matched "support:", so you're still wrong.

> So far it looks like this isn't actually a list of reasons you will need jQuery

Accept that it does with the exception of two things I thought I had removed.

You owe me an apology.

<3 lol

If you like spirit, you'll love this: https://gist.github.com/rwaldron/8720084#file-reasons-md

Take only what you need https://github.com/jquery/jquery#modules

OMG, you should file a ticket for jQuery core to implement some kind of system for breaking up the source into modules!! Here's a link: https://github.com/jquery/jquery#modules

"poor intentionally provocative OP"?

How is a list of irrefutable facts a "poor intentionally provocative [original post]"?

Show me how smart you are!

...Which is an argument in _favor_ of jQuery.

You silly goose!

My favorite part is how I learned that I don't need to use `var`—I can make everything global!!

You're welcome. It's every line of the jQuery source code, syntax highlighted by github.

http://www.amazon.com/Pinzon-Egyptian-Cotton-725-Gram-6-Piec...

For your tears.