Re:Walt: JavaScript-like syntax for WebAssembly
by gear54rus on Thursday October 11, 2018 @04:16AM
(#18191739)
so what is your problem with all this? that these functions have both provided a flexible interface for use cases that are not this single one?
Re:Walt: JavaScript-like syntax for WebAssembly
by kybernetikos on Friday October 12, 2018 @03:40PM
(#18204130)
> browser-dependent
Language version dependent rather than browser dependent.
It may seem the same (after all, different browsers implement different versions of the language), but it's a bit different, if you say 'browser-dependent' it makes it sound like there is no standard when in fact, the leading zero behaviour hasn't been the case since ecmascript 5. You'll struggle to find a browser in common use that doesn't support at least ecmascript 5. It's as browser-dependent as the array.map function which was added at the same time.
Your example code would never have the leading 0 problem since you're using array.map and array.map didn't exist in the engines that had that leading 0 'feature'.
This is simple, straightforward, and wrong:
This doesn't work because map() stuffs a counter into the second argument of parseInt(), which is expecting a radix for its second argument. So the iterations of the map go like this: …and so on, which obviously gives garbage results. JavaScript is littered with these kinds of weird edge cases. Even your example with the workaround isn't 100% reliable, it's browser-dependent – when you have leading zeros in your strings, some browsers will interpret them as octal, and some won't.