Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by gfodor on Sunday April 15, 2012 @01:22AM
(#3842884)
This is great, thanks. The only logical conclusion is that engineers should be choosing tools that have the least syntactical surface area to argue over. :)
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by regularfry on Sunday April 15, 2012 @04:08AM
(#3843123)
Whatever you do, don't go looking for the discussions that happened around scheme r6rs...
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by ExpiredLink on Sunday April 15, 2012 @05:37AM
(#3843252)
Berners Lee's 'principle of least power'?
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by ricardobeat on Sunday April 15, 2012 @01:33AM
(#3842909)
Assembler? ;)
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by codeka on Sunday April 15, 2012 @07:48AM
(#3843465)
Brainfk, clearly.
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by crystalis on Sunday April 15, 2012 @04:50AM
(#3843173)
Few people truly understand the semantics of a language, but everyone knows why indexing from 1 is bad.
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by reinhardt on Sunday April 15, 2012 @05:52AM
(#3843279)
... that is, for some values of "everyone" ;)
Re:Crockford on Bootstrap's semicolon omission: “insanely st...
by hellerbarde on Sunday April 15, 2012 @11:45AM
(#3843893)
jep, see Eiffel. Convention is indexing from 1. (but it allows you to do it in whatever way you want, start from 3 if you want, because hey why not -.-)
This unfortunate behavior is well described by Wadler's Law:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadlers_Law