Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3046RE: [jslint] Re: return statement flagged as syntax error

Expand Messages
  • Rob Richardson
    Oct 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks for the link. That was an incredibly cool video. Thoughts I
      particularly enjoyed:

      - "Optimize for perfection, not for cleverness"
      - "Programs need to communicate clearly with people"
      - "I'm not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying there isn't a case where it
      isn't confusing"
      - "Confusion must be avoided because confusion creates the condition which
      creates bugs"
      - "Clearly communicate intent"
      - "Forms that hide defects should be considered defects"

      By the way, you noted it was his opening quote that referenced JSHint, but
      it actually was the final comment in the video. (42:00) You might want to
      fix that bug. :D


      -----Original Message-----
      From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Tom Worster
      Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:39 PM
      To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: return statement flagged as syntax error

      "There are always going to be stupid people who don't want to get it right.
      For them it's really good that JSHint is available." --

      as i've said before, JSLint isn't for everyone.

      i accept JSLint's preferences over my own because i doubt my own skills and
      can't be sure who will work on my code in future. it clearly makes no sense
      for me to argue with JSLint. there's nothing for me to gain from that.

      on the other hand, a programmer of superlative skill and confidence, who
      knows that her code will be maintained only by completely reliable
      programmers, and who has strong feelings about style that differ from those
      of JSLint -- that programmer has good reason to set their own standards and
      write their own tools.

      so, it appears i don't entirely agree with douglas' opening quote. but i
      think he was not thinking of these preternaturally talented programmers but
      of another category of people, those that think JSLint is wrong but still
      want some version of it to give their code its OK.

      as for polite/rude... i live in boston where traditionally the locals are
      terse, direct and forthright. it doesn't bother me.

      On 10/4/12 2:38 PM, "Rob Richardson" <erobrich@...
      <mailto:erobrich%40robrich.org> > wrote:

      >douglascrockford <douglas@...
      ><mailto:douglas%40crockford.com> <mailto:douglas%40crockford.com> >
      >> douglascrockford <douglas@...> wrote on Thu, 4 Oct 2012 at 02:00:02
      >> -0000 in <k4iqj2+rjit@...>:
      >> > Fix your code.
      >> It would be so easy to explain why this construct is disfavored.
      >> It would be so easy to give a link to a web page.
      >> It would be so easy to be polite.
      >> Why is it necessary to be rude?
      >>In his original post he stipulated that the code was bad. So we are
      >explanation here. He refused my advice. I repeated my advice. He can
      >take it or leave it. So can you.
      >http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=802 (17:16 starts a
      >wonderful discussion, but the whole show is great)
      >http://www.hanselminutes.com/332/coneryminutes-1 (12:30 starts a
      >descent sound-byte, but the whole conversation is excellent)
      >1. I'm sorry you feel the need to be so negative and terse when people
      >are asking for your advice.
      >2. You've definitely reached a great point of knowledge and experience
      >in your career, and others may not have that vision.
      >3. You release some really great tools, and I'm so glad you're helping
      >to enlighten, educate, and build the JavaScript community.
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic