- ... Do you happen to have a link? This is something I d like to know more about/play with a bit. Best, RiyadMessage 1 of 76 , Sep 21, 2011View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
> The "new" JS version (don't remember the version number) fills that gap. ItDo you happen to have a link? This is something I'd like to know more about/play with a bit.
> allows us to efficiently consume and produce binary data in JS. Trying to
> use a JS Array to store binary data (e.g. as 1-4 bytes/element) has a HUGE
> overhead because of the internal impl details of the Array class, which is
> normally a linked list).
- ... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012View SourceOn Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
> The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
> So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.
-+ Tatu +-