WEBVTT 1 00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:10.480 Hey, welcome back to another episode of JavaScript Jabber. This week, on 2 00:00:10.480 --> 00:00:14.560 our panel, we have a j O'Neal yo yo yo, coming at your 3 00:00:14.560 --> 00:00:19.480 live from the Is my audio in sync? It looks like it is. 4 00:00:20.760 --> 00:00:23.519 That's a new place. I haven't heard of that place before. Yeah. 5 00:00:23.519 --> 00:00:28.079 Well I was on the boot dot dev podcast and when it got released on 6 00:00:28.120 --> 00:00:33.039 YouTube, I'm like half a second off. Oh yeah, it looks terrible 7 00:00:33.840 --> 00:00:36.039 and I was trying to figure it out. And as far as I can 8 00:00:36.119 --> 00:00:38.799 tell, my audio is in sync on this end. And look, I 9 00:00:38.840 --> 00:00:42.920 can see lag too, now that you say it, Yeah, there is 10 00:00:42.960 --> 00:00:46.039 a slight lag. Really you're looking for it, you can see it. 11 00:00:46.560 --> 00:00:50.520 Well, that's what we need to know because I can fix that extremely easily. 12 00:00:50.600 --> 00:00:56.320 I can fix that with Okay, is the lag better or worse? 13 00:00:57.799 --> 00:01:02.679 Not, bab, that's the same. How about now is it is double 14 00:01:02.679 --> 00:01:07.799 shooting live on the show? I know, yeah, I think it looks 15 00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:11.599 better now. I think yeah, okay, deal a right hundred millisecond to 16 00:01:11.760 --> 00:01:14.480 like, this is how the sausage is made, Yes, this is how 17 00:01:14.480 --> 00:01:18.319 the sausage is made. Coming at your live from how the sausage is made, 18 00:01:19.400 --> 00:01:22.879 I think there is still an I would add another one hundred millisecond by 19 00:01:22.879 --> 00:01:26.400 the way, all right, thanks, all right. We also have Dan 20 00:01:26.439 --> 00:01:34.400 Shapier Hey from an Israel still at war, Steve Edwards Yo from I'm only 21 00:01:34.439 --> 00:01:40.799 one yo, not yo yo yo from uh that's very foggy Portland area where 22 00:01:40.799 --> 00:01:44.640 we need more snow. Yeah, I'm Charles Maxwood from top End Devs and 23 00:01:45.599 --> 00:01:49.040 I'm gonna tell you all to go over to top endevs dot com slash calendar. 24 00:01:49.079 --> 00:01:53.439 We have a whole bunch of stuff coming up and I'm super excited to 25 00:01:53.480 --> 00:01:57.359 be uh working with folks to help them get ahead and figure things out. 26 00:01:57.400 --> 00:02:04.359 So yeah, this week we're going to be talking about typescript and JavaScript. 27 00:02:04.359 --> 00:02:07.840 And Dan, you've done a whole bunch of Twitter polls that you wanted to 28 00:02:07.879 --> 00:02:12.719 talk through, and I think that's kind of an interesting thing that you're doing 29 00:02:12.759 --> 00:02:15.960 there. Do you want to give us a little bit of backstory though on 30 00:02:15.680 --> 00:02:22.080 what prompted you to ask these questions and why these particular ones. Yeah, 31 00:02:22.360 --> 00:02:25.039 Well, as you said, over the past couple of weeks, I've been 32 00:02:25.120 --> 00:02:30.520 running a series of polls. They're actually fairly easy to find on my account 33 00:02:30.599 --> 00:02:34.319 because i've more or less phrased all of them the same way. All of 34 00:02:34.360 --> 00:02:38.439 them start with a question what kind of a JS slash tsdev are you? 35 00:02:38.199 --> 00:02:43.039 And then I pose a particular question and we will go through the list of 36 00:02:43.120 --> 00:02:46.400 questions. Now. The reason is that, as we know, and as 37 00:02:46.439 --> 00:02:53.039 AJ loves, there are multiple ways to do anything in JavaScript, and over 38 00:02:53.199 --> 00:02:58.919 the past number of years, the number of ways has been steadily increasing, 39 00:02:59.800 --> 00:03:05.280 and all the tooling is also influencing the way in which we're using JavaScript, 40 00:03:05.319 --> 00:03:10.960 and it kind of made me curious about, you know, our developers primarily 41 00:03:12.080 --> 00:03:19.199 using the new ways the old ways. I've seen I've been surprised by some 42 00:03:19.280 --> 00:03:22.120 of the things that I've seen people do. You know, I review a 43 00:03:22.120 --> 00:03:25.319 lot of code. I've been surprised by things that I've see in code. 44 00:03:27.159 --> 00:03:30.759 Now, you know, we've got tools like Prettier and whatnot to kind of 45 00:03:31.319 --> 00:03:39.680 rectify a lot of the you know, various discrepancies that creep into our code. 46 00:03:39.719 --> 00:03:43.680 But be that as it may, I was really interested in, you 47 00:03:43.719 --> 00:03:46.719 know, how people, you know, what are their default preferences as it 48 00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:53.520 were, you know, And so I started running these polls just you know, 49 00:03:53.639 --> 00:03:57.280 various questions that popped into my head about the ways in which people are 50 00:03:57.400 --> 00:04:02.400 using JavaScript or typescript or both, and sometimes I was surprised by the answers, 51 00:04:02.599 --> 00:04:08.280 sometimes less so. And I thought that it would be a great topic 52 00:04:08.400 --> 00:04:12.639 to discuss, you know, especially in this episode, which we are recording 53 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:15.759 on January first, So it's kind of like the beginning of the new year 54 00:04:16.480 --> 00:04:23.040 and trying to kind of take stock where we all are as web developers or 55 00:04:23.160 --> 00:04:27.720 JavaScript developers. So, as you said, I've ran all this whole bunch 56 00:04:27.759 --> 00:04:32.480 of questions. I doubt that we will have time to go through all of 57 00:04:32.480 --> 00:04:36.920 them, but we will see, you know, maybe we'll have more for 58 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:42.000 an additional episode. Maybe I'll run I'll have ideas for more questions to ask 59 00:04:42.160 --> 00:04:47.399 following this episode. But I've copied all the other questions and the answers that 60 00:04:47.439 --> 00:04:55.279 I got. I didn't organize them according to the order in which I asked 61 00:04:55.279 --> 00:04:59.199 them, because that was pretty random as things occurred to me. Rather, 62 00:04:59.360 --> 00:05:05.000 I tried to group them and also kind of sort them from the more general, 63 00:05:05.279 --> 00:05:10.680 you might say, to the more specific, so we will see how 64 00:05:10.680 --> 00:05:14.560 it goes and how farther far down the list we can get. So the 65 00:05:14.600 --> 00:05:17.240 first question which I asked, the first question on the poll, and one 66 00:05:17.399 --> 00:05:21.439 of the questions that got the most votes, it got something like three hundred 67 00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:29.800 and seventy six votes, not like exactly, and the question was about the 68 00:05:29.959 --> 00:05:34.079 usage of you might say, typescript versus JavaScript. So I basically gave four 69 00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:45.079 options typescript without any, typescript with any JS doc, and JavaScript without any 70 00:05:45.120 --> 00:05:49.720 explicit types. Now it's important to kind of emphasize that when I'm what I 71 00:05:49.800 --> 00:05:57.240 meant by typescript without any is not that there's absolutely positively no use of any 72 00:05:57.279 --> 00:06:01.959 anywhere in the code, rather that then an effort is made in order to 73 00:06:02.040 --> 00:06:08.639 get rid of any as much as makes sense. So it's about people who 74 00:06:08.680 --> 00:06:15.079 take a more strict attitude towards typescript versus those that take a more relaxed kind 75 00:06:15.120 --> 00:06:21.920 of attitude towards typescript. But you might say that both these groups actually use 76 00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:29.879 typescript. In fact, I might argue that anybody is using jastock is effectively 77 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:36.720 also using typescript, just with a different syntax and different tool chain. And 78 00:06:36.759 --> 00:06:44.920 the makers just felt would agree with that, Yeah, for sure. And 79 00:06:45.279 --> 00:06:49.079 it's also worth mentioning that, you know, one of the Twitter brew ha 80 00:06:49.199 --> 00:06:53.639 haas that we had back in twenty twenty three, you know, so long 81 00:06:53.680 --> 00:07:00.560 ago was the one started by Dagge about whether or not using explicit types is 82 00:07:00.600 --> 00:07:04.439 a good thing or not. And you know, whether we should be just 83 00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:12.920 using javascripted dynamic types or should we be you know, converting to static typing 84 00:07:12.959 --> 00:07:17.519 as much as we can. And it's important to emphasize that difference between uh 85 00:07:17.839 --> 00:07:23.680 a Dhege takes take and the one taken let's say in Spelt, which you 86 00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:31.199 mentioned where they they ditched the typescript syntax, but not the typescript approach because 87 00:07:31.240 --> 00:07:41.000 as as Steve said, they embraced jaystoc. So if we go, if 88 00:07:41.040 --> 00:07:46.839 we look at the results, we see that almost fifty five percent use typescript 89 00:07:46.079 --> 00:07:56.000 without any then another, yeah, how do I do that? Is there? 90 00:07:56.439 --> 00:08:01.759 Oh? Yeah, a present that's the one? Okay, sure, 91 00:08:01.839 --> 00:08:09.360 screen, Okay, just keep in mind that most of our audio only, 92 00:08:09.439 --> 00:08:15.120 so we need to make it friendly to that. Yeah, obviously, here 93 00:08:15.160 --> 00:08:22.319 we go. Can you see it now? Nope? I got to add 94 00:08:22.319 --> 00:08:30.839 it to the Oh there we go. Good deal. Okay. The only 95 00:08:30.879 --> 00:08:33.799 problem is that then now I don't see you guys. But you know, 96 00:08:33.039 --> 00:08:41.039 be that as it may, it can be a good thing. Yeah. 97 00:08:41.039 --> 00:08:48.679 So again the numbers are fifty five percent almost used typescript without any, twenty 98 00:08:48.720 --> 00:08:58.159 percent used typescript with any, another fourteen percent use JS stock and there and 99 00:08:58.200 --> 00:09:05.279 then and then percent just use JavaScript. I think I vuted in this one, 100 00:09:05.320 --> 00:09:09.720 and I think I was the last because I've just I've been too lazy 101 00:09:09.759 --> 00:09:16.279 to really deeply go for any of it. So you're you're just using JavaScript 102 00:09:16.279 --> 00:09:22.399 and benefiting from the type information that the VS code can provide for you regardless, 103 00:09:22.480 --> 00:09:26.559 because yeah, basically for the libraries and whatnot. Yeah, but you 104 00:09:26.639 --> 00:09:35.159 also have to understand that my contract is a Ruby contract and so right, 105 00:09:35.279 --> 00:09:41.639 so a lot of those people are probably not writing full stacked JavaScript, right, 106 00:09:41.679 --> 00:09:45.080 They're they're doing something where hey, you know, it pulls in the 107 00:09:45.159 --> 00:09:48.720 JavaScript stuff and it does the JavaScript stuff. M Does that make sense? 108 00:09:50.159 --> 00:09:54.279 Yes? It does so, And and you know, if your usage of 109 00:09:54.399 --> 00:10:00.399 JavaScript is kind of minimal, and especially if you're working solo, it makes 110 00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:05.120 a whole lot of sense. In my opinion, I once tweeted, joked 111 00:10:05.240 --> 00:10:11.159 or shit tweeted or whatever you call it, that my optimal use of typescript 112 00:10:11.240 --> 00:10:16.360 is everybody uses typescript and I just use JavaScript and benefits from everybody else's hard 113 00:10:16.399 --> 00:10:24.039 work. So I totally get it. And most of the organizations that I 114 00:10:24.200 --> 00:10:28.759 see using typescript actually are you know, multiple developers working together on the same 115 00:10:28.799 --> 00:10:33.279 code base. It could be like five people, it might be fifty people. 116 00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:37.840 And in those environments it makes sense to be as strict as you possibly 117 00:10:37.879 --> 00:10:43.559 can about stuff well the moment you have to refactor something. Okay, first 118 00:10:43.600 --> 00:10:46.200 of all, I'm not talking about typescript, I'm talking about types. I'm 119 00:10:46.240 --> 00:10:50.799 not even talking about types. I'm talking about tooling. Because all of this 120 00:10:50.200 --> 00:10:54.879 is completely it really is just completely bogus, entirely because there's no such thing 121 00:10:54.919 --> 00:10:58.519 as types. There's only tooling. Once it runs his machine code, the 122 00:10:58.559 --> 00:11:05.120 machine runs whatever the machine code says. The machine does not care about types 123 00:11:05.480 --> 00:11:09.679 whatsoever. That's how we get all the security vulnerabilities, uh in memory corruption 124 00:11:09.960 --> 00:11:13.240 and and you know, all of that stuff, right, because the machine 125 00:11:13.320 --> 00:11:18.799 doesn't know what types are. The types are in the tooling, and the 126 00:11:18.840 --> 00:11:24.240 Typescript checker is probably the best tooling that we have in JavaScript. I think 127 00:11:24.279 --> 00:11:28.279 we could have something way better. I think it pales in comparison to what 128 00:11:28.759 --> 00:11:33.720 somebody just looking at JavaScript as a language could come up with if they had 129 00:11:33.759 --> 00:11:39.080 the resources that the typescript team had, Right. But jas doc and the 130 00:11:39.080 --> 00:11:45.000 typescript checker gives you tooling that lets you know when things are out of alignment. 131 00:11:46.240 --> 00:11:50.840 So you change you missed, you misspell something, you misspell a property 132 00:11:50.919 --> 00:11:56.360 name, you get the spell check on it. You you need to change 133 00:11:56.320 --> 00:12:01.000 the name and type of something. Say that. Know, you did the 134 00:12:01.039 --> 00:12:07.120 dummy thing and you put in as a float, but you realize, oh, 135 00:12:07.200 --> 00:12:11.440 that should be a string instead, because it's money and money and floats 136 00:12:11.440 --> 00:12:13.960 don't mix right, and you know, so you change it to a string. 137 00:12:13.559 --> 00:12:22.000 It gives you that capability to get errors where you forgot something, and 138 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:28.639 I think that's really where the core value of it is. Well, I 139 00:12:28.759 --> 00:12:35.159 have to say first of all that these days, if you're using doing money 140 00:12:35.159 --> 00:12:41.080 in JavaScript, you should be using like a big int rather than strings. 141 00:12:41.679 --> 00:12:48.720 Oh sure, pardon my French. Yeah, but it's interesting that I agree 142 00:12:48.759 --> 00:12:52.879 with the gist of what you said, but I do disagree with some of 143 00:12:52.919 --> 00:13:00.360 the details. I think you're correct about the run time carrying, you know, 144 00:13:00.440 --> 00:13:03.240 not caring that much about types in terms of the machine code, although 145 00:13:03.279 --> 00:13:07.639 you know it does. You know, these days, if used to differentiate 146 00:13:07.679 --> 00:13:15.360 between floats and ends and stuff like that. But the types in many programming 147 00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:22.360 languages do determine the code that gets generated. It's interesting that in the typescript 148 00:13:22.480 --> 00:13:28.879 JavaScript combination, you know, all the type information is effectively jettisoned, and 149 00:13:28.919 --> 00:13:35.320 then the JavaScript engine kind of needs to infer the stuff dynamically at runtime and 150 00:13:35.600 --> 00:13:39.200 generate the code based on that on what it actually encounters and sees, and 151 00:13:39.720 --> 00:13:45.639 totally disregard the information that it had probably you know, probably correct information that 152 00:13:45.720 --> 00:13:54.120 it might have had in typescript. Yes, but if you are using and 153 00:13:54.200 --> 00:13:58.320 again not typescript, but if you're using JavaScript types and you're using them consistently, 154 00:13:58.799 --> 00:14:03.279 if you're only using you know, if you never switch a variable name 155 00:14:03.600 --> 00:14:09.519 between what type it is, so you do strict typing, and then you 156 00:14:09.639 --> 00:14:20.320 also use specific types for specific purpose strong typing, then you will when the 157 00:14:20.919 --> 00:14:28.519 when the JIT optimizer looks at your object. If you provided the object that 158 00:14:28.559 --> 00:14:33.600 you're going to use from the start and you use it the same way throughout, 159 00:14:33.480 --> 00:14:37.639 then it's going to be optimized. If you're stretching up the way you're 160 00:14:37.720 --> 00:14:43.440 using it, it can't optimize it. Again, I'll slightly rephrase, you're 161 00:14:43.879 --> 00:14:48.120 I if you are consistent in terms of the type information, you're making it 162 00:14:48.240 --> 00:14:52.960 much easier for the JIT to optimize it. It still may not optimize it. 163 00:14:54.039 --> 00:14:58.000 For example, if it's only run once, then it might decide that 164 00:14:58.039 --> 00:15:03.559 it's just not worth the effort. But but yeah, by by doing things 165 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:11.039 poorly in terms of type consistency, you're effectively preventing GIT from optimizing it, 166 00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:18.799 even if it wants to. The Other point that I wanted to make is 167 00:15:20.200 --> 00:15:26.360 that I don't know what surprised me more. Is was it the fact that 168 00:15:26.600 --> 00:15:37.200 eighty eight percent effectively used typescript or that twelve percent don't. Well we had 169 00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:41.120 a comment somebody said that fifty percent is lying, and I I'm gonna agree 170 00:15:41.120 --> 00:15:45.960 with them. Well, just to back up, you know, you said 171 00:15:45.960 --> 00:15:50.120 that typescript with any is or without any is, you're making an effort to 172 00:15:50.159 --> 00:15:52.120 minimize any But I don't know if I get that from this question. So 173 00:15:52.919 --> 00:15:56.080 oh, I added it in a follow up comment. I should have probably 174 00:15:56.120 --> 00:16:03.200 specified it more explicitly in the original original question. But if that's the case, 175 00:16:03.240 --> 00:16:07.679 if people read it to be, you know, really without any than 176 00:16:07.919 --> 00:16:11.720 fifty five percent, Yes, it's very optimistic. It is very optimistic. 177 00:16:11.799 --> 00:16:22.679 Yeah. Yes, from what I'm seeing in the real world, then there's 178 00:16:22.840 --> 00:16:26.720 much more use of any than we would like. By the way, Ah 179 00:16:26.759 --> 00:16:30.559 yeah, I remember one more thing that I wanted to say about what you 180 00:16:30.720 --> 00:16:36.240 mentioned before a J. I actually think that the Typescript team have done an 181 00:16:36.320 --> 00:16:41.879 amazing work of corraling what is likely the most dynamic of any of all dynamic 182 00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:49.000 languages into some sort of static type system. You know, JavaScript was not 183 00:16:49.320 --> 00:16:55.960 designed with static typing in mind. This is not okamal, this is not 184 00:16:56.120 --> 00:17:04.200 Haskell. Uh And being able to retrofit a sane static type system, you 185 00:17:04.240 --> 00:17:08.319 know, you can argue the same part, but you know, being able 186 00:17:08.400 --> 00:17:15.039 to retrofit something like that on top of JavaScript is pretty amazing. I'll give 187 00:17:15.079 --> 00:17:22.160 you an example. Think about a method like document dot create element. The 188 00:17:22.319 --> 00:17:30.720 type returned depends on this value of the string passed into the function. So 189 00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:37.680 you know that's something that's really kind of difficult to do if you think about 190 00:17:37.720 --> 00:17:45.599 it, you know, making the return type conditioned on the value of the 191 00:17:45.759 --> 00:17:49.519 argument. Well, I think I think this is where languages need to go, 192 00:17:49.599 --> 00:17:55.480 and this is one of the things that ZIG has maybe not pioneered but 193 00:17:55.920 --> 00:18:03.480 advertises there's no reason that your tooling shouldn't be able to look at your code 194 00:18:03.519 --> 00:18:08.319 and effectively run whatever is runnable at dev time, Like it shouldn't have to 195 00:18:08.359 --> 00:18:15.000 wait until its machine code to be able to understand, Oh, this string, 196 00:18:15.319 --> 00:18:22.359 it's obviously the word div you know. So I'm not as impressed by 197 00:18:22.359 --> 00:18:29.160 that as I am disappointed that it's taken this long and has so few implementations. 198 00:18:30.720 --> 00:18:33.519 There's a whole other topic which I think is beyond the scope today, 199 00:18:34.240 --> 00:18:40.480 which is about the fact that typescript really has effectively like two levels. There's 200 00:18:40.519 --> 00:18:45.440 the level of usage by most application developers, and then there's the level used 201 00:18:45.480 --> 00:18:52.559 by library creators, which is much more difficult and is much more use of 202 00:18:52.640 --> 00:19:00.480 things like generics and stuff like that in order to make the interfaces as type 203 00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:04.160 safe as possible, and sometimes that does require a lot of know how an 204 00:19:04.200 --> 00:19:07.359 effort. But again, I think that kind of goes beyond the scope of 205 00:19:07.799 --> 00:19:11.480 you know, how much we want to talk about that particular question, otherwise 206 00:19:11.519 --> 00:19:15.880 you'll never get to any of the others. Yeah, but so to that 207 00:19:17.079 --> 00:19:22.200 end, did you hear about a floppy bird being implemented in Typeescript? Well, 208 00:19:22.640 --> 00:19:26.200 yes, I did. And it's not surprising because in order to do. 209 00:19:26.279 --> 00:19:30.920 You know, once you introduce generics into the type system, you've effectively 210 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:36.279 made your type system a programming language. Yeah. And by typescript I meant 211 00:19:36.279 --> 00:19:40.559 not typescript, but type the types of type. Yeah, the typescript types. 212 00:19:41.160 --> 00:19:44.920 Yeah, the type. Yeah. I've seen similar things, by the 213 00:19:44.960 --> 00:19:48.960 way, done in for example, in C plus plus once when C plus 214 00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:55.839 plus got generics, the C plus plus template system. Because again, once 215 00:19:55.880 --> 00:20:00.640 you throw in generics and and stuff like that, and effectively it becomes a 216 00:20:00.680 --> 00:20:04.559 programming language. You can start doing conditionals and loops and from that point on, 217 00:20:04.640 --> 00:20:08.799 you know you're after the races. Okay, next question. The next 218 00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:14.640 question was, and here I need to thank a few people. You know, 219 00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:18.359 we will link to I won't try to read the names. We can 220 00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:23.440 link to the to the actual list of tweets and the people can see it. 221 00:20:23.799 --> 00:20:29.279 Basically, it was to see whether or not people are using semi colons 222 00:20:29.359 --> 00:20:33.400 or not, because again this became a whole Twitter debate all over again. 223 00:20:33.519 --> 00:20:37.839 Surprisingly so I really didn't expect it in twenty twenty three, but here we 224 00:20:37.920 --> 00:20:45.759 are whether or not you use semi colons at the end of JavaScript statements. 225 00:20:47.039 --> 00:20:51.200 Now, obviously we've got tools like prettier that can add it or remove it 226 00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:56.079 depending on your preferences. My question was mainly about what is your preference, 227 00:20:56.240 --> 00:21:02.160 what do you prefer to do, how do you prefer to write your jobscript 228 00:21:02.240 --> 00:21:07.759 code? And I'm happy to see that the majority prefer semi colons, because 229 00:21:07.839 --> 00:21:14.519 that's also my preference. Anybody here likes of, you know, not using 230 00:21:14.880 --> 00:21:19.079 not putting in semi colons explicitly something from the PHP world where they're required is 231 00:21:19.079 --> 00:21:22.680 to sort of have it anymore for me. It for me, it just 232 00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:27.039 makes neater and easier to read code. You know. That's and there's times 233 00:21:27.039 --> 00:21:32.319 where code won't have a semi colon, but that's pretty rare for me. 234 00:21:33.000 --> 00:21:37.000 Yeah, at the risk of dragging DHH back into this, so most of 235 00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:41.559 his JavaScript code samples don't have them, which is kind of funny because I 236 00:21:42.319 --> 00:21:48.319 prefer putting them in. I get that we have automatic semi colon insertion and 237 00:21:48.440 --> 00:21:52.799 other things that make it so that, you know, generally you don't have 238 00:21:52.880 --> 00:21:56.480 to put them in. I just I don't know for me, it's kind 239 00:21:56.480 --> 00:22:02.880 of just an explicit hey, you know, anyway I put them in I'm 240 00:22:02.960 --> 00:22:08.240 actually I feel like seventy percent right here. Yeah. My take on this 241 00:22:08.599 --> 00:22:12.839 is that, again, it's not that semi colons are optional in JavaScript. 242 00:22:12.880 --> 00:22:18.079 It's that we have asi automatic semi colon insertion, which basically means that the 243 00:22:18.160 --> 00:22:26.119 JavaScript parser parses stuff errors out because there's a missing semi coolon, and when 244 00:22:26.160 --> 00:22:30.319 it does, it catches that error and then tries to figure out where's the 245 00:22:30.440 --> 00:22:37.319 most logical place to insert that missing semicolon. And I don't like my tooling 246 00:22:37.759 --> 00:22:42.920 doing guesses about, you know, where semi colons should go. You know, 247 00:22:45.079 --> 00:22:48.160 I like magic in my code, but not this kind of magic. 248 00:22:48.759 --> 00:22:52.440 That's one of the things that's nice about Prettier is when you accidentally forget a 249 00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:56.200 semicolon or whatever, Prettier reformats your code in such a way that it is 250 00:22:56.359 --> 00:23:03.400 clearly obvious that the structure of the code and the way it's executing has changed. 251 00:23:04.079 --> 00:23:10.759 But I will also say one of the reasons that I'm against not using 252 00:23:10.799 --> 00:23:15.759 semi colons is that they are required because there's a list of edge cases that 253 00:23:15.799 --> 00:23:19.519 you have to be aware of, and you can either choose to just always 254 00:23:19.519 --> 00:23:25.240 put a semi colon, or you can carry around in your head that list 255 00:23:25.279 --> 00:23:30.839 of like five or seven checks, and then always be thinking about, like, 256 00:23:30.960 --> 00:23:36.279 every single time you don't insert a semicolon, is it breaking any of 257 00:23:36.319 --> 00:23:41.759 these five or seven rules? And if you are willing to do that mental 258 00:23:41.799 --> 00:23:49.599 gymnastics, then you don't need semi colons. However, I've found a very 259 00:23:49.720 --> 00:23:56.000 very simple list of rules that I believe also would eliminate the need for semi 260 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:03.039 colons, which is if you either all capture the result of a function or 261 00:24:03.200 --> 00:24:10.960 use the keyword void to explicitly disregard what the return of the Java and JavaScript 262 00:24:10.960 --> 00:24:15.759 are the same. I knew it. And you know, if you never 263 00:24:15.519 --> 00:24:22.359 do something that requires parentheses, uh in the order of operations fashion, you 264 00:24:22.400 --> 00:24:26.960 know, like if you never if you always split multiplication in addition onto two 265 00:24:26.960 --> 00:24:30.240 lines, or you know, something like that, anything that would require parentheses 266 00:24:30.279 --> 00:24:36.680 to be able to yeah, and be careful of the return keyword and other 267 00:24:36.799 --> 00:24:42.519 various rules just easier to semi colons. Uh yeah, Yeah. I agree 268 00:24:42.519 --> 00:24:48.200 with the tooling that we have, but I I believe that we could have 269 00:24:48.440 --> 00:24:55.359 a a version of JavaScript that doesn't require semi collins. Oh, which would 270 00:24:55.359 --> 00:24:56.839 be nice if we could. If we could get there, but it would 271 00:24:56.880 --> 00:25:02.440 require it following other rules that people anyway, Yeah, it's called python. 272 00:25:03.920 --> 00:25:10.480 I was I was actually gonna call it ai script, but there we go. 273 00:25:11.240 --> 00:25:15.160 Yeah, exactly. Okay, moving on to the next one. Another 274 00:25:15.279 --> 00:25:21.480 question about how people write, or style more precisely, their their JavaScript code. 275 00:25:21.920 --> 00:25:26.319 And this one is about how do you write a named function? And 276 00:25:26.480 --> 00:25:32.839 the two options are either to be old school and use the function keywords, 277 00:25:32.920 --> 00:25:37.519 So let's say it's function foo open parentheses, bar close parentheses, and then 278 00:25:37.599 --> 00:25:41.519 you know, open curly brackets and so forth. The other option, which 279 00:25:41.519 --> 00:25:48.359 I'm seeing a lot in code these days, is using an assignment of the 280 00:25:48.720 --> 00:25:53.920 function expression, so you would do something like constant fou equals a bar arrow 281 00:25:55.480 --> 00:26:03.240 and then the curly brackets, so it's assigning function expression into an named variable 282 00:26:03.480 --> 00:26:14.880 or identifier more precisely. Now Here it was fairly evenly split, but still 283 00:26:15.119 --> 00:26:23.400 fifty five percent preferred the good old fashion function keyword, which I'm happy to 284 00:26:23.440 --> 00:26:30.039 say is what I also prefer. And by the way, an important point 285 00:26:30.119 --> 00:26:33.880 to make here is that when I look at the code base, if it 286 00:26:33.920 --> 00:26:40.480 doesn't use the approach that I prefer, I don't change it. I maintain 287 00:26:40.559 --> 00:26:45.400 consistency with a code base. Wow, that's very mature review. I know, 288 00:26:45.599 --> 00:26:51.000 Dan, I know, I have to say the readability wise, I 289 00:26:51.079 --> 00:26:55.319 prefer the bottom one, but I am freaking lazy, and so I very 290 00:26:55.359 --> 00:27:03.039 often do the top one. Why just a macro like if you want to 291 00:27:03.039 --> 00:27:08.720 be lazy, be really lazy, like use the tools. Why are you 292 00:27:08.759 --> 00:27:12.119 typing out the whole word cost when you could just type fn and tab. 293 00:27:18.200 --> 00:27:23.319 Now I feel bad, to be honest, I really don't know why people 294 00:27:23.799 --> 00:27:34.839 preferred the assignment of the arrow. You know, maybe it's look it. 295 00:27:36.799 --> 00:27:41.599 There is the one benefit which or there are a few benefits. First of 296 00:27:41.640 --> 00:27:48.920 all, it does explicitly make the identified immutable, which is probably what you 297 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:52.759 want in a function in like ninety nine point nine percent of the time. 298 00:27:55.119 --> 00:28:00.799 Another advantage is that you don't that this is not bound, which is again 299 00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:08.319 is what you generally want these days. Uh. And another advantage is that 300 00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:15.079 you don't there's the arguments object doesn't exist, and the argument object is something 301 00:28:15.119 --> 00:28:18.799 that you probably don't want to use anyway these days. Other than that, 302 00:28:21.519 --> 00:28:26.759 it's I don't see like it's it seems less readable to me, like being 303 00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:30.799 saying something is a function is a much more explicit way of saying something is 304 00:28:30.799 --> 00:28:37.240 a function, and I like my god to be explicit. The other thing 305 00:28:37.440 --> 00:28:44.519 is hoisting. I like hoisting with with the assignment. It's you know, 306 00:28:45.079 --> 00:28:52.079 it's not hoisted, and you can get into trouble in unexpected scenarios. What 307 00:28:52.559 --> 00:28:59.440 do you think about exports dot foo equals or exports being a stand in for 308 00:29:00.359 --> 00:29:07.279 the larger object people dot get name equals, et cetera. I'm not sure 309 00:29:07.279 --> 00:29:11.720 I follow. Well. Most of the time you have a function, it's 310 00:29:11.720 --> 00:29:15.680 not an object, right, so you just no, not necessarily a lot 311 00:29:15.680 --> 00:29:21.720 of My code just has a lot of exported functions. Not necessarily a lot, 312 00:29:21.799 --> 00:29:25.759 but uh, you know one or more exported functions from a fire, 313 00:29:25.960 --> 00:29:29.799 from a module. Right. So what I'm saying is you just assign the 314 00:29:29.839 --> 00:29:33.160 function to the object that gets exported. No, I use the export keyword. 315 00:29:37.480 --> 00:29:44.240 You can't so your then so you can do structure. No, he's 316 00:29:44.319 --> 00:29:48.880 just using common JS. That's that's the thing. It took me a moment 317 00:29:48.039 --> 00:29:52.119 to realize what he meant. But even if it's not common JS, I 318 00:29:52.119 --> 00:29:56.279 mean just having you know, whatever object you're exporting be the thing that you 319 00:29:56.319 --> 00:30:03.240 attached. The functions to, But why why not just have export on the 320 00:30:03.480 --> 00:30:07.160 functions or on the identifiers as you know, as you can these days in 321 00:30:07.240 --> 00:30:14.720 modern JavaScript. Well, because then you have a lot it's just a lot 322 00:30:14.720 --> 00:30:17.599 more to parse. It's a lot like if you try to grap through the 323 00:30:17.640 --> 00:30:22.960 code, it's a lot easier to see the get name function attached to person 324 00:30:22.039 --> 00:30:26.839 than it is to see a bunch of get name functions across the code base 325 00:30:26.880 --> 00:30:30.039 through the different you know, like there's a get name in person, there's 326 00:30:30.039 --> 00:30:34.720 a get name and dog there's a name. I get what you're saying things. 327 00:30:36.279 --> 00:30:37.599 Yeah, I get what you're saying. The way that I deal with 328 00:30:37.680 --> 00:30:41.880 it is, first of all, that's the kind of the First of all, 329 00:30:41.920 --> 00:30:45.559 the reason that I like hoisting is that I put the exported stuff at 330 00:30:45.559 --> 00:30:51.839 the top, so it's not as if you're likely to you'll see something exported 331 00:30:51.920 --> 00:30:56.640 and then a lot of unexported stuff and then another exported something you know as 332 00:30:56.640 --> 00:31:00.359 soon. So that's one thing. Another sting, just to back up for 333 00:31:00.519 --> 00:31:04.079 people who are really new to JavaScript. So what hoisting does is if you 334 00:31:04.119 --> 00:31:08.960 declare a variable, it'll move it to the top of your you know when 335 00:31:10.000 --> 00:31:12.680 it does it stuff, And that way, you can put the exported stuff 336 00:31:12.720 --> 00:31:18.720 at the top. And since you have by the property of hoisting, anything 337 00:31:18.759 --> 00:31:22.319 you don't declare lower that's going to be used by the stuff you're exporting will 338 00:31:22.319 --> 00:31:26.240 get moved up above. Right, it's available to the things at the top 339 00:31:26.480 --> 00:31:30.200 exactly you haven't declared it yet, exactly, assuming you use a function keyword 340 00:31:30.640 --> 00:31:40.400 right. And so that's that's one. Another thing is that I tend to 341 00:31:40.480 --> 00:31:44.240 keep my module small, so it's not as if I'm going to be exporting 342 00:31:44.279 --> 00:31:48.359 one hundred things out of the same file. Again, unless it's like this 343 00:31:48.759 --> 00:31:53.880 special like you know, some people like coalesce a lot of the exports like 344 00:31:55.079 --> 00:31:59.680 it into the like sort of an index file at the root of a library 345 00:31:59.759 --> 00:32:02.480 or something, so to make it easier to import things. But for most 346 00:32:02.519 --> 00:32:07.880 actual implementations, I don't export a ton of stuff, So again you don't 347 00:32:07.920 --> 00:32:13.000 need to scan an entire and a large amount of code just to find all 348 00:32:13.039 --> 00:32:17.000 the exports. So but but I do get what you're saying, AJ there 349 00:32:17.079 --> 00:32:22.519 is merit in that, you know, if if if you're exporting something that 350 00:32:22.599 --> 00:32:27.799 looks that feels like an interface, it makes sense to like put it all 351 00:32:28.079 --> 00:32:32.440 within an object or something. I just just so you can see what's public 352 00:32:34.200 --> 00:32:37.240 at a glance, and when you grap through the code, you can easily 353 00:32:37.319 --> 00:32:42.000 find like, show me everything, show me all the methods that are exported 354 00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:45.960 from person at a glance, I can just grab person dot right, and 355 00:32:46.039 --> 00:32:52.960 you also can get the potentially easier completion. I don't use completion, but 356 00:32:53.160 --> 00:32:58.160 maybe so it takes too long to pop up on the screen. I can 357 00:32:58.160 --> 00:33:02.519 finish typing it by the time we did have a comment here, And I 358 00:33:02.519 --> 00:33:07.480 think it's an interesting kind of I know you're talking about name functions here, 359 00:33:07.839 --> 00:33:14.720 but and I'm sorry if I butcher your name. Bollogi, Ballage, Jaco. 360 00:33:14.920 --> 00:33:19.039 Anyway, he says good old function every day all day. The only 361 00:33:19.079 --> 00:33:22.880 time I use the aero function are in callback. So I guess the question 362 00:33:22.920 --> 00:33:29.680 that I'm aiming at here is do you ever use aerow functions for a function? 363 00:33:30.079 --> 00:33:35.920 Or for sure the name implies the describes their use. There are function 364 00:33:36.039 --> 00:33:44.440 expressions, so whenever I need a function alambda effectively within an expression, I 365 00:33:45.039 --> 00:33:47.640 use arrows. So you know, I'm a big fan, for example, 366 00:33:47.640 --> 00:33:53.359 of chaining, you know, using stuff like map or filter, stuff like 367 00:33:53.400 --> 00:33:59.000 that, and in those you know, unless it's some sort of a reusable 368 00:33:59.079 --> 00:34:05.200 code or really complex let's say filter that I you know, you probably don't 369 00:34:05.200 --> 00:34:09.079 want overly complicated filters and their functions anyway, but if but otherwise, I 370 00:34:09.159 --> 00:34:15.239 definitely use function expressions there or lambdas, and then I definitely use arrows. 371 00:34:15.920 --> 00:34:20.199 I never, I never. You know, you can use the function keyword 372 00:34:20.719 --> 00:34:23.159 for lambda's. You know, that's the old that's the old school way of 373 00:34:23.239 --> 00:34:31.320 yeah, exactly, I I don't do that, okay. So the problem 374 00:34:31.320 --> 00:34:38.119 with that, with the the lambda expression style is that the opening and closing 375 00:34:38.159 --> 00:34:43.840 curly braces become ambiguous, and so it's very difficult to tell whether you're returning 376 00:34:43.880 --> 00:34:49.239 an object or whether you're defining a block. That's that's my beef there. 377 00:34:49.239 --> 00:34:52.039 I've had bugs pop up with that multiple times. Yeah, it's always a 378 00:34:52.079 --> 00:34:54.599 block, and if you really want it to be an object, you need 379 00:34:54.599 --> 00:35:01.440 to surround it in parentheses with yeah, so then it looks yeah anyway. 380 00:35:02.079 --> 00:35:10.760 Yeah. Yeah, So I'm I'm hard against the implicit parentheses. Mhmm. 381 00:35:13.880 --> 00:35:16.679 Yeah, but again this has to do with the whole expression thing that it's 382 00:35:16.880 --> 00:35:21.360 you know, but yeah, I can see your point. You know, 383 00:35:21.440 --> 00:35:24.800 nothing's perfect moving on to the next one. I was just I was just 384 00:35:24.920 --> 00:35:30.920 curious how people use you know, how people write strings these days? Do 385 00:35:30.960 --> 00:35:36.199 they use single quotes, double quotes, backticks? What do they use for 386 00:35:36.280 --> 00:35:44.360 simple strings? And not surprisingly, the majority prefer single quotes. It's not 387 00:35:44.440 --> 00:35:47.159 surprising to me because why press the shift key when you don't have to. 388 00:35:50.960 --> 00:35:52.800 I looked at that one and I was trying to decide why anybody cared. 389 00:35:54.199 --> 00:36:00.559 Oh, I was just curious. You know you do you by the way, 390 00:36:00.639 --> 00:36:04.480 Interestingly, in the old days of JavaScript, you know, like I'm 391 00:36:04.480 --> 00:36:08.480 talking like fifteen twenty years ago, is I recall, most people did the 392 00:36:08.639 --> 00:36:15.199 double quotes, and it's and it's kind of changed over the past decade or 393 00:36:15.280 --> 00:36:21.159 two from what I'm what I experienced. So I write the single quotes, 394 00:36:21.440 --> 00:36:23.800 but I commit the double quotes because every time I write single quotes, it 395 00:36:23.840 --> 00:36:30.079 just gets transpiled to double quotes with prettier. The reason for that is that 396 00:36:30.159 --> 00:36:35.880 in every other programming language, single quotes are constants and double quotes are expressions. 397 00:36:36.480 --> 00:36:42.920 So I tend to only use single quotes intentionally when it's something that is 398 00:36:43.400 --> 00:36:49.920 a constant value, and I use double quotes in general because it's because usually 399 00:36:50.000 --> 00:36:58.480 you're doing expressions, you're not doing constants. Well I'm not sure what you 400 00:36:58.599 --> 00:37:05.039 mean by expression versus constant really yeah, never mind, Yeah, I can't 401 00:37:05.079 --> 00:37:09.239 say. The difference is is that you can interpolate within double quotes and you 402 00:37:09.360 --> 00:37:15.199 can't within single quotes. Yeah, so Ruby double quotes are like the backticks, 403 00:37:15.400 --> 00:37:22.800 aren't they kind of like kind of but yeah. But but the thing 404 00:37:22.920 --> 00:37:28.320 is is that people try to make all kinds of arguments about like performance and 405 00:37:28.320 --> 00:37:30.280 stuff like that, and I just haven't seen anything there the holds water. 406 00:37:30.920 --> 00:37:36.519 So that that's why I'm saying. You know, if people look at it 407 00:37:36.559 --> 00:37:38.519 and they know it's a string, then why why do you cat? I 408 00:37:38.559 --> 00:37:43.800 will make one more, the one real. There are two reasons I initially 409 00:37:43.840 --> 00:37:49.599 when I got into JavaScript, I initially tended to use double quotes. Was 410 00:37:49.719 --> 00:37:54.800 because I come from C C plus plus and in those languages, double quotes 411 00:37:55.280 --> 00:38:01.719 are zero terminated or now terminated, and single quotes are not. And usually 412 00:38:01.760 --> 00:38:07.400 you want the string to be no al terminated usually. So yeah, now, 413 00:38:07.440 --> 00:38:15.400 the only vulnerabilities you definitely want the exactly now the only comment. I'm 414 00:38:15.480 --> 00:38:21.119 not really surprised that hardly anybody chose the backticks. The only thing that's kind 415 00:38:21.119 --> 00:38:25.840 of surprising about that is that we will see later on people do like backticks 416 00:38:25.880 --> 00:38:32.800 for template expressions. Yes, and uh. And it's kind of funny that 417 00:38:32.960 --> 00:38:37.880 you if a string becomes templatet and a template expression, which it might, 418 00:38:38.360 --> 00:38:44.159 you need to change the quotes. And then if it stops being a template 419 00:38:44.199 --> 00:38:47.920 expression for some reason, you need to change the quotes again rather than just 420 00:38:49.079 --> 00:38:52.559 leave them as they are, which works. So you could just use backticks 421 00:38:52.639 --> 00:38:57.800 everywhere, but apparently people don't like that. Can't You can't? Actually, 422 00:38:58.199 --> 00:39:04.920 so why I was actually on full backtick everywhere train for a while. You 423 00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:15.280 cannot use backticks for a key name. So if you were to an object 424 00:39:15.639 --> 00:39:22.320 and you put double quotes around you know, name and then colon double quotes 425 00:39:22.639 --> 00:39:30.880 AJ, you cannot do backtick name colon backtick AJ, you can't do that. 426 00:39:30.519 --> 00:39:35.719 And I think this just goes to I. This is very confusing to 427 00:39:35.760 --> 00:39:40.360 me because we have a template syntax for keys and an object, which is 428 00:39:40.400 --> 00:39:45.400 to put square brackets around it, and to me it seems I guess they 429 00:39:45.400 --> 00:39:51.280 were standardized at different times, Like why this is seems redundant? And silly. 430 00:39:51.920 --> 00:39:53.800 We should just be able to use the backticks as the template expression, 431 00:39:53.840 --> 00:39:59.440 but instead, if it's an object key, the template expression is you put 432 00:39:59.440 --> 00:40:06.840 brackets aroun round the variable name. Another interesting thing is that JSON uses double 433 00:40:06.920 --> 00:40:10.199 quotes. Yes, that's sewn me off before more times, and I care 434 00:40:10.280 --> 00:40:17.320 you remember. Yeahah, I think everybody NPM install fixed Jason, and it'll 435 00:40:17.400 --> 00:40:22.519 usually get picked up by your editor automatically. And then when you're editing Jason 436 00:40:22.559 --> 00:40:24.559 and you put a single quote by mistake, it'll just swap it to double 437 00:40:24.599 --> 00:40:29.960 quotes. It'll also deal with the trailing commas and stuff like that. Yeah, 438 00:40:29.960 --> 00:40:34.239 that's the other annoying thing. So my rule DAN is generally default to 439 00:40:35.119 --> 00:40:38.760 single quotes everywhere double quotes if I have to quote something inside a single quote, 440 00:40:38.800 --> 00:40:45.480 like say an attribute inside of a template like an abuse single file component 441 00:40:45.639 --> 00:40:50.000 in the template portion, and then the only time I ever find myself using 442 00:40:50.000 --> 00:40:52.119 backticks is when I needed to do a template string. And the example that 443 00:40:52.159 --> 00:40:57.599 I've been using a lot lately is if I'm defining a poster at get url 444 00:40:58.840 --> 00:41:02.280 within my view component and it requires a dynamic value like an ID value, 445 00:41:02.639 --> 00:41:06.079 you know, as part of the string or something dynamic, and I use 446 00:41:06.119 --> 00:41:09.719 the backtick with the dollar sign curly brackets around it. But general rule is 447 00:41:09.960 --> 00:41:15.119 single unless I have to otherwise. So the vast majority agree with you, 448 00:41:15.119 --> 00:41:20.559 Steve. And that also exactly goes to the next question on my list, 449 00:41:20.920 --> 00:41:28.760 which was about building a string from a static value and the dynamic value. 450 00:41:28.840 --> 00:41:35.119 So would you write greet equals hello plus name or greet equals backtick hello, 451 00:41:35.519 --> 00:41:40.639 dollar curly bracket, name, curly bracket. And it's amazing to see how 452 00:41:40.800 --> 00:41:46.400 popular template strings have become. You know, people have told me that it's 453 00:41:46.400 --> 00:41:52.559 not really surprising because most default y lint rules or linting rules. Now we 454 00:41:52.719 --> 00:41:57.679 kind of enforced this approach so people really got used to it. But still 455 00:41:58.400 --> 00:42:04.440 it's interesting that so many people just prefer to use the template the template literals. 456 00:42:04.679 --> 00:42:07.840 Well, it makes sense. It makes sense because basically you're not switching 457 00:42:07.880 --> 00:42:10.920 in and out of your of your context. You don't have to do like 458 00:42:12.159 --> 00:42:17.840 hello plus space plus string, variable plus comment and quotes. But you know, 459 00:42:17.880 --> 00:42:22.039 in this you can just do it all in one fell swoop with having 460 00:42:22.039 --> 00:42:27.280 to switch context like that. Well, and in my opinion, it's easier 461 00:42:27.320 --> 00:42:32.360 to parse because the plus with the quotes, it blends into one line more 462 00:42:32.400 --> 00:42:37.559 easily. The dollar bracket stands out more and so you know where you're sticking 463 00:42:37.639 --> 00:42:42.719 dynamic values into that sucker. Yeah, and my at least in might id 464 00:42:42.920 --> 00:42:45.679 and I'm assuming I use PHP storm. I'm assuming it does the most. 465 00:42:45.320 --> 00:42:50.800 It will highlight those colors, highlights your template strings, and they stand out 466 00:42:50.800 --> 00:42:54.760 more easily. So I know exactly what I did. And that's always my 467 00:42:54.920 --> 00:43:00.400 issue is how can I make it easier for future me or some other idiot, 468 00:43:00.400 --> 00:43:05.239 But it's usually future meet. It's the idiot right to look at this 469 00:43:05.320 --> 00:43:09.679 and go, oh, I can easily see what's going on here. Yeah, 470 00:43:09.719 --> 00:43:15.639 and the vast majority agree with you, like eighty eight point four percent. 471 00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:22.400 Yes, AJ. So what convinced me on this? Because I've gone 472 00:43:22.599 --> 00:43:25.880 every which way with the template strings unfortunately, because there's no consistent way to 473 00:43:27.000 --> 00:43:30.400 use them, Like I wish that there was a consistent way to use them, 474 00:43:30.400 --> 00:43:34.039 but there's an edge case where they don't work. No, like, 475 00:43:34.400 --> 00:43:38.119 no matter which style of coding you prefer, that like you just run into 476 00:43:38.559 --> 00:43:43.920 something where you can't you can't be consistent in the way you use strings in 477 00:43:44.000 --> 00:43:50.280 jonascript. But three sixty five JS things, which is well, I guess 478 00:43:50.280 --> 00:43:52.239 the Twitter handle is actually at unique name, but this is Corey Brown. 479 00:43:53.719 --> 00:44:02.679 He made the argument that it's easier for you and the interpreter because you don't 480 00:44:02.719 --> 00:44:09.400 have to worry about order of operations errors or concatenation type changes. So if 481 00:44:09.480 --> 00:44:15.199 you think putting the two things inside the template string, you know they're both 482 00:44:15.239 --> 00:44:17.239 going to be strings. So if one happens to be a number and the 483 00:44:17.280 --> 00:44:22.440 other happens to be a number, if you use plus, but you were 484 00:44:22.519 --> 00:44:25.079 thinking that you were assigning a string, you're actually you know, I mean, 485 00:44:25.079 --> 00:44:28.760 that's kind of a weird case. But still, I mean weird cases 486 00:44:28.760 --> 00:44:30.880 are what where the rugs come from? I know. And by the way, 487 00:44:31.039 --> 00:44:36.360 one of the most like if if I could have gone back in time 488 00:44:36.440 --> 00:44:42.880 and whispered on berendan Ike's years back when he was creating JavaScript, one of 489 00:44:42.920 --> 00:44:45.719 the things that I would have suggested to him would have been to use a 490 00:44:45.760 --> 00:44:52.599 different operator for audition versus concatenation of strings. Yeah, and this gives you 491 00:44:52.639 --> 00:45:00.440 that this, so that's yeah, effectively it does. Yeah. Okay, 492 00:45:00.440 --> 00:45:04.199 moving on to the next one, where now we're entering a new topic, 493 00:45:04.360 --> 00:45:08.079 which is array processing. So I asked a bunch of questions about, you 494 00:45:08.119 --> 00:45:13.880 know, the ways in which people work with arrays. And the first question 495 00:45:14.119 --> 00:45:17.920 is kind of like the most basic one, and which is, how would 496 00:45:17.960 --> 00:45:24.639 you iterate over an array in the scenario where you're you kind of you know, 497 00:45:24.719 --> 00:45:29.199 in the side effect scenario. So forget, for example, about something 498 00:45:29.320 --> 00:45:32.079 like a map or a filter. Let's say I want to log all the 499 00:45:32.199 --> 00:45:37.719 values of an array, or I want to send over the network all the 500 00:45:37.800 --> 00:45:40.239 values of an array, or I want to add to the dom all the 501 00:45:40.320 --> 00:45:45.079 values of an array or something like that. How would you iterate over the 502 00:45:45.199 --> 00:45:51.119 array? The first option is the old school one, which is, you 503 00:45:51.119 --> 00:45:55.239 know, I equals zero ie less than a dot length I plus plus. 504 00:45:57.039 --> 00:46:02.039 The next one is more modern use of four of you know, it might 505 00:46:02.119 --> 00:46:07.920 be four cons to v of A And the last one is the dot for 506 00:46:08.159 --> 00:46:15.719 each and it depends what you want to do. Oh, by the way, 507 00:46:15.880 --> 00:46:23.000 is an area like an array? Just kidding you? So yeah, 508 00:46:23.039 --> 00:46:30.119 it's interesting. I generally like to use four each. I guess the caveat 509 00:46:30.159 --> 00:46:35.400 here, DAN is what you're trying to do as compared to something like a 510 00:46:35.480 --> 00:46:37.800 map or filter. Right, you just want to do something twitter item is 511 00:46:37.840 --> 00:46:44.440 you don't necessarily want to filter out certain items or only extract certain items from 512 00:46:44.559 --> 00:46:47.960 Yeah, as I said before, I like chaining, so when I can 513 00:46:49.159 --> 00:46:54.920 chain stuff, I usually go for chaining. But I explicitly wanted to look 514 00:46:54.960 --> 00:47:04.360 at the scenario where you're just looping over the u an array and just doing 515 00:47:04.440 --> 00:47:07.039 something with the values, like I said, maybe sending them over the network, 516 00:47:07.199 --> 00:47:12.119 or or adding them to the dom or something like that. I've seen 517 00:47:12.199 --> 00:47:19.639 arguments that for each is performance inhibitive. But it's funny some of those arguments 518 00:47:19.679 --> 00:47:21.960 I see. They say, well, there are a performance here and here, 519 00:47:21.960 --> 00:47:24.440 but the difference is like microscopic. First of all, First of all 520 00:47:24.480 --> 00:47:29.760 the different First of all, let's say this, I'll be surprised or shocked 521 00:47:30.199 --> 00:47:36.000 if that's the actual performance issue in your code, and it is, you 522 00:47:36.039 --> 00:47:38.320 know, prove it to me with a profiler. That's point number one. 523 00:47:38.639 --> 00:47:44.639 Point number two is I can't think of scenarios in which four each would actually 524 00:47:44.719 --> 00:47:52.199 have better performance. Because JavaScript, the JavaScript engines actually optimize functions as a 525 00:47:52.239 --> 00:47:57.800 whole in most cases, so they either optimize the entire function or they don't 526 00:47:57.840 --> 00:48:04.360 optimize the entire function. With each they can optimize the function being invoked in 527 00:48:04.519 --> 00:48:08.559 the function expression being invoked inside the four each, even if for some reason 528 00:48:08.599 --> 00:48:15.880 they cannot it optimize the containing function. And in that scenario, you'll actually 529 00:48:15.920 --> 00:48:22.440 get the optimization of the code called on each iteration sooner or faster or more 530 00:48:22.440 --> 00:48:27.360 easily than with the others. So here's a scenario where that one might actually 531 00:48:27.559 --> 00:48:32.880 execute faster. But again, I highly doubt that that will be the performance 532 00:48:32.920 --> 00:48:37.559 bottleneck in your code either way. So it's very much more of a stylistic 533 00:48:37.639 --> 00:48:43.400 choice than anything else. Yeah, I just want to chime in here because 534 00:48:43.400 --> 00:48:46.119 this was the debate in the Ruby community between the single quotes and the double 535 00:48:46.199 --> 00:48:52.480 quotes. If somebody did the profiling and it was like a twenty pcos second 536 00:48:52.880 --> 00:48:55.000 difference, right, and so they were saying, see, it's more performant, 537 00:48:55.000 --> 00:48:58.880 and I was just like, so what you're telling me is I could 538 00:48:58.880 --> 00:49:01.480 just keep being lazy and I'm gonna add twenty pico seconds here or there to 539 00:49:01.519 --> 00:49:05.039 my code. Okay, great, I'm just going to keep using the whole 540 00:49:05.119 --> 00:49:12.840 quotes. So what you guys prefer, which which approach to you would you 541 00:49:12.920 --> 00:49:16.519 take? I use four each whenever I can, I I got on the 542 00:49:16.559 --> 00:49:23.559 four each bus early, but then when promises were introduced, I'm not when 543 00:49:23.599 --> 00:49:27.360 a sink await was introduced, eventually I had to get off the four each 544 00:49:27.400 --> 00:49:31.599 chasing or the for each bus because then you you you end up with this 545 00:49:31.679 --> 00:49:35.719 what color is your fore loop and I just don't want to deal with it. 546 00:49:35.760 --> 00:49:38.880 So I've stopped using four each map filter all it just like I've thrown 547 00:49:38.920 --> 00:49:45.199 it all away because it's just not worth the the overhead of having to go 548 00:49:45.280 --> 00:49:49.440 back and refactor code for something that is I mean it's one line anyway. 549 00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:58.199 Just just saying, yeah, just saying that once a sink iterator for helpers 550 00:49:58.639 --> 00:50:04.000 hit the language, whenever they finally do you sorry, you get in there, 551 00:50:04.760 --> 00:50:07.519 yeah, and now you need to stop. Well it had it on 552 00:50:07.599 --> 00:50:14.199 looping, yeah, and looping is the topic. All I was saying is 553 00:50:14.239 --> 00:50:22.039 that if and when perfectly timed, that's the best one of all ten year 554 00:50:22.119 --> 00:50:30.039 run. Uh. If and when sync iterator helpers actually land in JavaScript AJ, 555 00:50:30.239 --> 00:50:32.880 then you would be able I don't know if you want to, but 556 00:50:32.960 --> 00:50:43.840 you would be able to go back to those US iteration methods. But yeah, 557 00:50:43.840 --> 00:50:46.239 you can start doing it right again. It'd be hard it'd be hard 558 00:50:46.280 --> 00:50:52.599 to get me back on that bus because iterators introduce their own set of problems. 559 00:50:52.639 --> 00:50:57.800 Somebody needs to go through the the twelve different standard bodies that govern JavaScript 560 00:50:58.159 --> 00:51:00.880 and just come out with like a unified standard of javascripts so that we have 561 00:51:00.960 --> 00:51:07.920 one language, not a language, and six implementations by different committees that don't 562 00:51:07.920 --> 00:51:12.320 communicate with each other. And I think that's what Winter CG is trying to 563 00:51:12.320 --> 00:51:17.159 do. Well. No, Winter Winter Oh, that's not exactly the case. 564 00:51:17.400 --> 00:51:22.320 You know, it's an aside. Winter CG is about the library code, 565 00:51:22.360 --> 00:51:25.320 so it's about the fetch and stuff like that, not things that are 566 00:51:25.400 --> 00:51:30.639 actually part of the language. So part of the language itself is still owned 567 00:51:30.719 --> 00:51:35.599 by TC thirty nine and will continue to be there, but we kind of 568 00:51:35.599 --> 00:51:38.760 deviated. I have to say that I was kind of surprised that more people 569 00:51:39.199 --> 00:51:45.760 preferred four of over four each. It was pretty close. It's forty two 570 00:51:45.800 --> 00:51:51.559 percent versus forty point five percent, so it's kind of neck and neck, 571 00:51:52.920 --> 00:51:58.760 but you know, it still surprised me. I was expecting far fewer people 572 00:51:58.800 --> 00:52:02.440 to actually use four all. I'm guessing aj that it's probably because of the 573 00:52:02.519 --> 00:52:07.320 reason that you mentioned. You know, people really like a sink of weight, 574 00:52:07.880 --> 00:52:13.440 and it's much easier to use them with the four of rather than four 575 00:52:13.519 --> 00:52:21.079 each. Uh. And I am happy that people are ditching four I, 576 00:52:21.320 --> 00:52:25.920 although you know, eighteen percent using it is still a lot simply because it's 577 00:52:27.639 --> 00:52:30.159 it's too much, it's tmi, it's you know, it's it's why are 578 00:52:30.280 --> 00:52:36.440 you in the nitty gritty of you know, the index and whatnots teaching your 579 00:52:36.440 --> 00:52:39.480 computer science class. But this is again, this goes this goes back to 580 00:52:39.719 --> 00:52:45.199 a lack of foresight in these committees. Right, most languages that have an 581 00:52:45.239 --> 00:52:52.840 iterator construct it would be four K com a V of A. You can 582 00:52:52.880 --> 00:52:55.679 actually do that here. You can actually kind of do that. You can 583 00:52:55.679 --> 00:53:00.960 do constant v let's say v I of n trees, so you can have 584 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:07.639 both the key and the value. Okay, so you can't do four you 585 00:53:07.679 --> 00:53:16.840 do a constant open square brackets key comma value of a dot entries. I'm 586 00:53:16.880 --> 00:53:21.239 gonna have to try because Yeah. The reason that I do revert back to 587 00:53:21.280 --> 00:53:28.000 the I plus equals one loop is because there are occasions where I need access 588 00:53:28.039 --> 00:53:34.639 to the index for some reason. Sometimes it's modifying the original array. Sometimes 589 00:53:34.800 --> 00:53:38.960 it's so so instead of keys, you use the you use entries that returns 590 00:53:40.000 --> 00:53:45.960 a sequence of arrays of like well tuples where you've got like the first is 591 00:53:46.039 --> 00:53:51.199 the key and then the value. Uh, and then you destructure them into 592 00:53:51.360 --> 00:53:58.599 a key and into a key and of value. Okay, I I might 593 00:53:58.719 --> 00:54:00.840 play with it, but I I just have a sense that something will go 594 00:54:00.840 --> 00:54:07.079 wrong there. The one more important thing to mention, of course, is 595 00:54:07.119 --> 00:54:13.599 that four of is not that well. Let's put it this way. All 596 00:54:13.679 --> 00:54:17.559 three actually do a different thing. So they're used for the symp for the 597 00:54:17.639 --> 00:54:22.599 same purpose or the very similar purpose, but each one really does a different 598 00:54:22.639 --> 00:54:29.440 thing. Four I literally you know, goes over all the values from zero 599 00:54:29.519 --> 00:54:36.800 to lengths. Four of actually uses an iterator, so it's syntactic sugar for 600 00:54:36.960 --> 00:54:39.239 iterator, which is why A doesn't need to be an ara. It can 601 00:54:39.280 --> 00:54:45.320 be anything which exposes an iterator. It could be a map or a set 602 00:54:45.639 --> 00:54:50.079 or whatnot. Okay, yeah, because it's not intuitive when it works and 603 00:54:50.079 --> 00:54:52.000 when it doesn't, I always convert things to a raise before using it, 604 00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:55.320 because I thought it worked in a case where the thing was an object. 605 00:54:55.400 --> 00:55:00.760 But then it works in the case so that where A is an object, 606 00:55:00.800 --> 00:55:07.719 assuming A is an object that has an iterator. Yeah, and for each 607 00:55:07.480 --> 00:55:13.960 depends on what the implementation of for each is on that object. You can, 608 00:55:14.239 --> 00:55:20.039 you know, so if it's standard javascripts. Yeah, again, as 609 00:55:20.039 --> 00:55:22.360 I'm saying, you know, I was saying, they effectively do the same 610 00:55:22.440 --> 00:55:28.639 thing in most cases. It's just important to understand that the implementation is different. 611 00:55:30.239 --> 00:55:35.480 Well to the point of iterators. They feel like, I guess metaprogramming. 612 00:55:35.719 --> 00:55:40.360 It's but that's the thing. But that's the argument we keep having a 613 00:55:40.639 --> 00:55:46.239 j I totally agree that iterators kind of failed in JavaScript in that nobody explicitly 614 00:55:46.360 --> 00:55:53.320 uses iterators in JavaScript, but everybody, but everybody uses iterators implicitly in JavaScript. 615 00:55:53.320 --> 00:55:55.440 First of all, as you can see, almost half the people use 616 00:55:55.519 --> 00:56:00.800 four all, which is built on top of iterators. Everybody he uses the 617 00:56:00.840 --> 00:56:07.039 spread operator, which is built on top of iterators. So everybody's using iterators 618 00:56:07.079 --> 00:56:12.719 without thinking about the fact that it's iterators under the hood. Sure, but 619 00:56:14.519 --> 00:56:20.480 you don't, okay, so, but promises you If you're using a sync 620 00:56:20.519 --> 00:56:27.039 and await without knowing the how promises work, you're probably creating bugs in your 621 00:56:27.079 --> 00:56:34.880 code or otherwise doing it wrong. The iterator stuff. Thankfully, you don't 622 00:56:35.440 --> 00:56:42.079 have to have ever used an iterator explicitly to use the spread operator. I 623 00:56:42.239 --> 00:56:46.000 totally agree, and that's a good thing because iterators iterators were meant to be 624 00:56:46.199 --> 00:56:52.519 used explicitly by library creators. Library It's like, you know, it's like 625 00:56:52.639 --> 00:56:57.159 as a library user, you just get a nicer interface to the code and 626 00:56:57.239 --> 00:57:00.639 you don't need to think about how it actually works on the inside. Yeah. 627 00:57:02.920 --> 00:57:06.760 Anyway, moving on to the next one, which is kind of related, 628 00:57:07.639 --> 00:57:10.679 it's about how do you concatenate two arrays. The two options are again 629 00:57:10.920 --> 00:57:19.280 either go old school and use the concat methods. Yeah, you can see 630 00:57:19.280 --> 00:57:24.280 it here here it is, which is Garcius. So you can either do 631 00:57:24.679 --> 00:57:30.800 like A equals B concat C, or you can do the new spread thing, 632 00:57:30.960 --> 00:57:36.559 which is A equals open square brackets three dots B comma three dot C 633 00:57:36.840 --> 00:57:44.840 closed square brackets. So again, the code is not the same, and 634 00:57:44.920 --> 00:57:49.719 there are various edge cases in which the code can behave really differently. For 635 00:57:49.880 --> 00:57:59.360 example, what happens if C is not an array, But you know in 636 00:57:59.519 --> 00:58:01.559 most case is when A, B and CR are all of them. When 637 00:58:01.639 --> 00:58:08.119 B and C are raised, the results of the same. So it's it's 638 00:58:08.199 --> 00:58:14.280 interesting to see, you know, what people use and it's interesting to see 639 00:58:14.320 --> 00:58:17.760 that most people eighty percent, almost eighty percent of the people these days now 640 00:58:17.920 --> 00:58:24.559 prefer the spread operators inside square brackets the deep side. I love it. 641 00:58:27.719 --> 00:58:31.320 I heard somebody give a deep sigh. Yeah, yeah, Why am I 642 00:58:31.400 --> 00:58:39.280 not surprised? Why are you? Why? Why are you signing AJ for 643 00:58:39.400 --> 00:58:44.960 a couple of things again? Committees and every other language. If you're doing 644 00:58:45.039 --> 00:58:49.800 a spread, the spread is on the right side, not the left side. 645 00:58:49.840 --> 00:58:53.480 That is a collect The dots on the left side are a collector. 646 00:58:53.800 --> 00:58:59.960 The dots on the right side are a spreader. Okay, synax a side. 647 00:59:00.159 --> 00:59:06.559 It just is so much more complicated, Like I don't get the preference 648 00:59:07.280 --> 00:59:12.440 for people to use symbols over words when the words are more clear to the 649 00:59:12.559 --> 00:59:16.000 most casual of observer. Right, you do open bracket clothes, bracket dot 650 00:59:16.079 --> 00:59:20.320 can cat, B, comm a se, which is an option you didn't 651 00:59:20.360 --> 00:59:24.599 list there. But that's the way I actually do it. Just sorry, 652 00:59:25.079 --> 00:59:29.559 just just a new array dot can cat and then b and then ce. 653 00:59:30.360 --> 00:59:35.519 Okay. But it's just it's just so much more explicit, it's easier to 654 00:59:35.639 --> 00:59:42.199 read, and and just I just see so much code that's like aero symbol 655 00:59:42.480 --> 00:59:50.960 brackets dots, and it just it's really difficult because people people it's line noise, 656 00:59:51.280 --> 00:59:54.960 that's what you're saying. Line noise. Sure, And and so there's 657 00:59:54.960 --> 01:00:00.719 a lot of JavaScript that ends up looking like pearl because it's just like arrows 658 01:00:00.880 --> 01:00:05.199 dots, and you know, just like one thing after the other. And 659 01:00:06.280 --> 01:00:10.639 I'm looking at I don't know, five lines of code that probably should be 660 01:00:10.760 --> 01:00:16.599 fifteen, trying to figure out what the does this even do it it's worth 661 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:22.000 By the way, I had an interesting conversation about this with Evata we've had 662 01:00:22.559 --> 01:00:27.800 from Meta, We've had on the show. He spoke about the vest testing 663 01:00:27.920 --> 01:00:34.039 library, and he actually prefers concat, and there are two reasons that he 664 01:00:34.199 --> 01:00:38.519 gave. One is that concat works well with chaining, which he likes. 665 01:00:39.920 --> 01:00:45.039 Now, of course you can add stuff after the closing square brackets, you 666 01:00:45.119 --> 01:00:51.079 can change stuff there, but then the chaining looks less natural because you got 667 01:00:51.159 --> 01:00:53.840 some of the chain inside the brackets and then some of the chain after the 668 01:00:53.920 --> 01:00:59.920 brackets. And the other reason that he liked it, which I'm more ambivalent 669 01:01:00.079 --> 01:01:05.920 about, and I told him so, is that concat works when c is 670 01:01:06.039 --> 01:01:12.079 of value rather than a collection that's bad, that's not good. That's what 671 01:01:12.239 --> 01:01:16.960 I think. But he likes it. Yeah. I have gotten a little 672 01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:28.199 bit scared sometimes because of concat Yeah, not knowing how it will interpret something, 673 01:01:28.199 --> 01:01:30.559 because I want the error in that case right, Like I want to 674 01:01:30.599 --> 01:01:35.239 be like, oh, you you have done you put the wrong variable in 675 01:01:35.320 --> 01:01:37.719 here. By the way, once we get through a race, we should 676 01:01:37.760 --> 01:01:45.360 probably call it an episode. Yeah, for sure, So let's speed things 677 01:01:45.440 --> 01:01:47.639 up. We've got two more things about arrays, which is great. You 678 01:01:47.719 --> 01:01:52.119 know, we've got things for next time, and I'll probably have you know, 679 01:01:52.639 --> 01:01:57.280 by the way, if either you or the listeners have ideas about you 680 01:01:57.360 --> 01:02:00.599 know, additional such polls that I should run, I'd be more than happy 681 01:02:00.719 --> 01:02:05.000 to if you just send me a link, you know, either DM me 682 01:02:05.519 --> 01:02:08.039 or send me by the way to all our listeners. You know, if 683 01:02:08.119 --> 01:02:15.800 you're not following us on Twitter, why you know, I'm Dance Shapee on 684 01:02:15.880 --> 01:02:20.840 Twitter exactly, I'm just Dance Shapiro on Twitter. You know, follow me. 685 01:02:21.079 --> 01:02:23.440 I'll probably follow you back, and you know we can all be friends. 686 01:02:23.840 --> 01:02:29.159 You like me here on the podcast, you you'd probably like me just 687 01:02:29.239 --> 01:02:34.239 as much on X anyway, moving to the next to the next one, 688 01:02:35.039 --> 01:02:38.679 it's how to get the last item of an array. So again we've got 689 01:02:38.760 --> 01:02:43.960 the old school approach, which is, uh, you know, just use 690 01:02:44.079 --> 01:02:50.840 the dot length minus one inside the square brackets. Uh. Then we've got 691 01:02:51.840 --> 01:02:55.039 I'll go to the other extreme. We've got the latest and greatest, which 692 01:02:55.199 --> 01:03:02.199 is the at method, and the works exactly like an index, only it 693 01:03:02.320 --> 01:03:09.559 also supports negative values, so exactly exactly like slice. So you know, 694 01:03:09.880 --> 01:03:16.719 doing an act at minus one gives you the last value. By the way, 695 01:03:17.280 --> 01:03:27.800 I am slightly miffed that it's minus one rather than minus zero. So 696 01:03:28.039 --> 01:03:30.559 zero based going one way and one based going the other. Is that what 697 01:03:30.639 --> 01:03:35.880 you're saying. Yeah? And by the way, JavaScript does have the concept 698 01:03:35.960 --> 01:03:42.320 of a minus zero as an almost distinct value from zero. Yeah. This 699 01:03:42.599 --> 01:03:47.360 is one of the underscore versus low dash things. This low dash handles negative 700 01:03:47.440 --> 01:03:55.960 zero perspec so so yeah, but anyway, it isn't so the last item 701 01:03:57.079 --> 01:04:02.000 is minus one rather than minus zero. And the and the the kind of 702 01:04:02.039 --> 01:04:05.239 the middle of the road is to do, uh, is to use the 703 01:04:05.360 --> 01:04:10.480 dot slice, which supported minus one from way back when. Uh. And 704 01:04:10.639 --> 01:04:15.440 then you can just destructure the result because the slice returns an array, so 705 01:04:15.559 --> 01:04:18.679 it was like zero. If you don't want your code to look weird. 706 01:04:19.320 --> 01:04:27.360 Yeah, and uh, I like slice. Yeah. It's the only downside, 707 01:04:27.400 --> 01:04:30.239 of course, is we were talking overhead in the Pico seconds. It 708 01:04:30.400 --> 01:04:34.880 actually allocates an array and and copies into that array. So there is a 709 01:04:34.960 --> 01:04:39.719 slight edition of my memory allocation. Yeah, exactly, it's gonna be a 710 01:04:39.800 --> 01:04:43.800 tiny bit bigger. You know, I've always used slice, I haven't used 711 01:04:43.880 --> 01:04:45.400 AT, but just looking at the code, to me, it makes more 712 01:04:45.480 --> 01:04:49.800 sense. I like that. Yeah, looking at the difference between slice and 713 01:04:49.880 --> 01:04:56.920 splice and and uh yeah, and AT is pretty much universally supported these days. 714 01:04:57.320 --> 01:05:00.760 It's it's obviously Node, the this version of Node, and I think 715 01:05:00.840 --> 01:05:05.960 all the all the browsers now support it. So it just works even if 716 01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:13.920 you don't use some transportations a step or whatnot. But it's interesting to see 717 01:05:13.960 --> 01:05:19.039 that the majority of people fifty five percent still go old school, but they 718 01:05:19.079 --> 01:05:24.840 don't know about it. They're finding out about it today on this podcast. 719 01:05:25.039 --> 01:05:28.119 Yeah, or when they say yeah, but I get I gave the option 720 01:05:28.280 --> 01:05:30.320 on the poll. They could have said, hey, that's cool, I 721 01:05:30.400 --> 01:05:32.760 don't use it, but I'll start using it today and they yeah, But 722 01:05:32.800 --> 01:05:35.960 then they would have still answered the pole honestly. Ah, yeah, okay, 723 01:05:38.280 --> 01:05:47.119 maybe maybe yeah, I'm I'm I'm with with the act, but but 724 01:05:47.360 --> 01:05:53.280 yeah, uh, it's not complicated. It's easy to understand. The only 725 01:05:53.440 --> 01:05:58.159 potential downside that I see if it's not an actual array but rather an array 726 01:05:58.360 --> 01:06:02.320 like object, you know, those abominations. But other than that, you 727 01:06:02.400 --> 01:06:06.599 know, just use that so weird thing. AT is not on Can I 728 01:06:06.760 --> 01:06:14.079 Use? Are you sure you can't search for it? Probably because it's a 729 01:06:14.119 --> 01:06:17.400 two letter search term. I'm trying to see if I can get it. 730 01:06:17.639 --> 01:06:23.960 Not it is not there. AT is not on Can I Use? So, 731 01:06:24.360 --> 01:06:27.840 but I have started using AT for my node code because now it's gotten 732 01:06:27.880 --> 01:06:31.320 mature enough in node that I feel comfortable using it. Last time we had 733 01:06:31.639 --> 01:06:35.519 mentioned it on the show. It I don't think that it had been in 734 01:06:36.719 --> 01:06:42.119 an LTS release yet or something like that, but I believe that now it 735 01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:46.880 actually has been in an LTS release, so it's mature enough. But I'm 736 01:06:46.920 --> 01:06:50.159 not sure on the browser side if browser's actually support it yet or not. 737 01:06:51.480 --> 01:06:57.880 Oh, browsers too, you know what, Oh, I found it. 738 01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:00.920 I found it on Can I Use. It's just it's it's weird. Okay, 739 01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:06.440 Yeah, So basically it doesn't work on any of the Asian browsers, 740 01:07:06.559 --> 01:07:15.039 So qqby do coos doesn't work on the WIU or on feature phones on Android. 741 01:07:15.840 --> 01:07:17.599 Yeah, but you'll probably use it built when you built for those, 742 01:07:17.719 --> 01:07:24.159 you probably use a transpolation. Then you're fine. Well, but if you 743 01:07:24.199 --> 01:07:29.000 don't want to use transporlation, if your target is people on feature phones, 744 01:07:29.079 --> 01:07:35.159 meaning non paying customers or Asians, then you don't want to use it unless 745 01:07:35.159 --> 01:07:40.440 you dresspile. Okay, and now moving on to the last question of the 746 01:07:40.519 --> 01:07:44.559 day, the last question in the ARA category. This one is slightly contrived, 747 01:07:44.920 --> 01:07:49.719 or more than slightly, but still it was interesting. Let's say you 748 01:07:49.920 --> 01:07:57.679 want an array where the values match the index the index values, so it 749 01:07:57.760 --> 01:08:00.079 would be an era with the value zero, one, two, three, 750 01:08:00.199 --> 01:08:04.760 four all the way up to nd or what that. So there, how 751 01:08:04.840 --> 01:08:12.280 would you create this in uh in your code? And and it does come 752 01:08:12.400 --> 01:08:15.720 up, you know, I've I've I've run into this scenarios where you want 753 01:08:15.800 --> 01:08:20.319 it, and it's kind of annoying that the there there's no easy way to 754 01:08:20.399 --> 01:08:25.279 get it, although in the spec they are working towards something and we can 755 01:08:25.399 --> 01:08:31.319 mention it at the end. But the options that I gave are using. 756 01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:35.319 It's you know, I'll basically be reading out code. It's easy using using 757 01:08:35.560 --> 01:08:42.119 RA a dot from where you can provide it with two arguments. One is 758 01:08:42.239 --> 01:08:46.199 just an object with the length property that you you know, whatever your end 759 01:08:46.359 --> 01:08:49.399 that you want to go up to, and the other is kind of a 760 01:08:49.560 --> 01:08:56.319 map function that you can provide this as an optional second argument to the from 761 01:08:56.920 --> 01:09:01.239 and you can use it to actually fill in the values into the array that 762 01:09:01.359 --> 01:09:09.560 you're generating. So that's option number one. Option number two is to create 763 01:09:11.880 --> 01:09:16.159 you know, you might call it an empty array of length n by just 764 01:09:16.359 --> 01:09:21.079 using the array constructor with the value n. Then use the dot fill to 765 01:09:21.159 --> 01:09:25.439 actually fill it with something, because it so that it won't be empty, 766 01:09:25.920 --> 01:09:29.640 so you can fill it with zeros. And then you can use the map 767 01:09:30.119 --> 01:09:35.560 to actually put the indexes into the array. And then finally there's the old 768 01:09:35.560 --> 01:09:42.760 school approach of just using whatever loop construct you prefer with a push to push 769 01:09:42.880 --> 01:09:49.760 the values into what was initially an empty array. So yeah, and interestingly, 770 01:09:50.560 --> 01:09:58.560 it kind of split almost well almost equally between all those between these three 771 01:09:58.640 --> 01:10:04.880 options. Interestingly, ay from is in the lead, which kind of surprised 772 01:10:04.920 --> 01:10:08.720 me. On the other hand, only this one was the one that got 773 01:10:08.760 --> 01:10:13.479 the least amount of votes. Only seventy one people voted on this particular poll, 774 01:10:14.039 --> 01:10:16.960 and it might be skewed by, you know, the people who tend 775 01:10:17.039 --> 01:10:23.960 to follow me, So that's definitely a possibility there. I'm curious what you 776 01:10:24.119 --> 01:10:30.439 guys would have used in this scenario. Preferring readability and being that looking at 777 01:10:30.479 --> 01:10:36.399 that screenshot is absolutely no clearer than listening on the podcast. I prefer the 778 01:10:36.600 --> 01:10:43.359 obvious. I create a function called range, and then I do whatever I 779 01:10:43.479 --> 01:10:45.760 do in there, and I can't remember what I do, but it is 780 01:10:45.039 --> 01:10:48.520 a pain in the butt. Yes it's it's weird, but I create a 781 01:10:48.600 --> 01:10:55.800 function called range so that it's clear what I'm doing. How about you, 782 01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:00.039 Chuck, what would you use? I do the loop and push. I 783 01:11:00.079 --> 01:11:02.960 didn't even know you could do the other stuff. And Steve, how about 784 01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:10.000 you? What Jack said? By the way, so again, if you 785 01:11:10.199 --> 01:11:16.439 tell I've mentioned before you know, reminded me that an advantage of ray from 786 01:11:16.720 --> 01:11:21.760 over the array and then the fill is that you iterate over the loop once 787 01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:27.920 rather than twice, because with phil you first iterate to fill it with zero, 788 01:11:28.119 --> 01:11:30.159 and then you iterate again in order to fill it. With the actual 789 01:11:30.399 --> 01:11:39.600 index values, so it is a couple of picko seconds slower. Yeah, 790 01:11:39.880 --> 01:11:43.319 it's interesting. I don't you know, I really don't know what I would 791 01:11:43.439 --> 01:11:46.880 use. To be honest, I probably do what Aj just said, which 792 01:11:46.960 --> 01:11:54.239 is why it's really great that JavaScript standard is working on introducing a built in 793 01:11:54.960 --> 01:12:02.199 range method so that you will be able to get such ranges, you know, 794 01:12:02.720 --> 01:12:05.920 out of the box, built in without you having to implement them yourself. 795 01:12:08.680 --> 01:12:11.800 Yeah. So I'm definitely in support of that making it to the standard 796 01:12:11.880 --> 01:12:16.720 library. Hopefully it's done in a way that isn't incompatible with all the other 797 01:12:16.800 --> 01:12:23.560 types of loops we do. Let me let me slightly and slightly annoy you. 798 01:12:23.920 --> 01:12:29.119 It's iterator dot range, so it will be a method on the iterator 799 01:12:29.199 --> 01:12:33.680 object. They're going to force people to accept the one iterator object. Huh. 800 01:12:33.960 --> 01:12:36.920 Yeah. But it does mean that it will work with four of, 801 01:12:38.800 --> 01:12:42.720 So if you want to do a four I over a range of values, 802 01:12:43.560 --> 01:12:47.479 you'd actually do a four of over a range. And the advantage of doing 803 01:12:47.560 --> 01:12:51.920 it over as an iterator is that it would never actually allocate the error, 804 01:12:54.079 --> 01:12:58.760 so you could do theoretically an infinite range and then break out of it when 805 01:12:58.760 --> 01:13:00.880 you don't need it any know, when you reach the point that you're done 806 01:13:00.920 --> 01:13:04.439 with it, I just I've got to ask the question though, because this 807 01:13:04.600 --> 01:13:08.560 is this is you know, the thing that people say about iterating, Oh, 808 01:13:08.600 --> 01:13:13.199 it doesn't allocate the memory in what real UK use case? Are you 809 01:13:13.479 --> 01:13:20.119 generating such a big number of things? No? Actually, actually that's not 810 01:13:20.439 --> 01:13:26.239 the right way to think about it. You either you either generate uh, 811 01:13:26.760 --> 01:13:30.960 something that has a limited size, in which case you're absolutely correct, or 812 01:13:31.600 --> 01:13:38.439 you generate something that looks as if it's infinite sized and then you break out 813 01:13:38.479 --> 01:13:42.159 of it when when you're you reach the point where you don't need to go 814 01:13:42.279 --> 01:13:48.439 any further. Okay, I I'm not I get the sense of what you're 815 01:13:48.479 --> 01:13:56.279 saying. I'm not sure where it's of practical think about and think about think 816 01:13:56.359 --> 01:14:00.960 about, for example, I've got the sequence of all the all the odd 817 01:14:00.399 --> 01:14:05.479 numbers, and then I go as far as I need to go again. 818 01:14:05.560 --> 01:14:10.439 It's it's like one of those things that people say for mathematical purity. But 819 01:14:10.760 --> 01:14:15.560 okay, show me the use case baby. Ah. Anyway, this is 820 01:14:15.640 --> 01:14:20.880 it for today. Uh. You know, we've got like something like five 821 01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:25.960 more questions remaining that we can do in some follow up episodes or not. 822 01:14:26.760 --> 01:14:30.279 You know, hopefully I'll have more questions, more polls by then, but 823 01:14:30.640 --> 01:14:34.800 you know, like we're we're essentially out of time. So Dan, did 824 01:14:34.840 --> 01:14:41.359 you calculate your margin of error for this pulling? No? I did not, 825 01:14:41.680 --> 01:14:45.079 but I'll put it this way, And that's another reason to follow me. 826 01:14:45.640 --> 01:14:49.520 I am betting that there's a certain skew in my answers, given that, 827 01:14:49.800 --> 01:14:54.920 you know, thinking about the people who follow me, people like Dan 828 01:14:55.039 --> 01:15:04.600 Abramov and Mitch Harris and Ryan Carniato and Adiosmani and mischigiol hevery just throwing out 829 01:15:04.680 --> 01:15:12.760 the names, you know, So if you want to be amongst that refined 830 01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:16.840 crowd, you should follow me, and then you can and then you'll see 831 01:15:16.880 --> 01:15:20.880 my polls when they come out and you can participate. All right, well, 832 01:15:21.079 --> 01:15:25.119 let's let's get to some picks. And yeah, by all means if 833 01:15:25.159 --> 01:15:28.439 you have a question you think Dan should ask, throw that at him too, 834 01:15:30.880 --> 01:15:33.640 All right, A j why don't you start us off with our picks? 835 01:15:34.439 --> 01:15:41.399 Okay, picks, dang h. One thing that I was thinking about 836 01:15:41.479 --> 01:15:45.359 recently is I got I'm now in the third book of the Chaos Walking trilogy, 837 01:15:46.560 --> 01:15:53.720 and that is pretty good. I'm going to be interested to watch the 838 01:15:53.800 --> 01:15:58.640 movie after I finish the books and kind of see which trilogy is that Chaos 839 01:15:58.760 --> 01:16:03.840 Walking. It starts with the knife of Never Letting Go. It's about it's 840 01:16:03.920 --> 01:16:11.880 about a colony. It's kind of like a space western, but the people 841 01:16:12.039 --> 01:16:15.319 have crash landed their ship on a planet and they're not going to be able 842 01:16:15.359 --> 01:16:17.239 to get off of it. And then they you know, it's been almost 843 01:16:17.279 --> 01:16:24.399 a generation of people living there, and then the next settlership is on its 844 01:16:24.479 --> 01:16:30.920 way. And so there was a movie in twenty twenty one that sounds about 845 01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:38.319 right. Okay, yeah, so but the movie got really bad reviews, 846 01:16:38.359 --> 01:16:42.960 and I think the problem was that they tried to turn it into I think 847 01:16:43.039 --> 01:16:45.159 this is what I heard, is that they tried to turn it into a 848 01:16:45.199 --> 01:16:50.000 story about sexism, and it just didn't land with people because people didn't want 849 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.560 to get preached at that wanted to watch that movie. They wanted the story. 850 01:16:54.760 --> 01:16:58.920 And so a lot of people said that they're really upset that they abused 851 01:16:58.960 --> 01:17:00.560 the movie. Uh, and that the book, you know, if they 852 01:17:00.680 --> 01:17:04.560 followed the book instead of creating their own story arc that you know, the 853 01:17:04.640 --> 01:17:10.319 movie could have done well. And so That got me interested in the book 854 01:17:10.319 --> 01:17:12.920 because I liked the trailer for the movie and I didn't know it was based 855 01:17:12.960 --> 01:17:15.960 on a book. But the reviews were so bad that I just didn't go 856 01:17:15.119 --> 01:17:17.359 see it. But I saw a review that said, look, you got 857 01:17:17.479 --> 01:17:21.600 to read the books because the books actually are an interesting story. And the 858 01:17:23.039 --> 01:17:27.079 reason that it would be an easy movie to turn into, you know, 859 01:17:27.159 --> 01:17:31.439 a political message about sexism is because there is a divide the mint. So 860 01:17:31.600 --> 01:17:40.319 everybody is infected with a bacteria or some pathogen or or parasite or whatever that, 861 01:17:41.600 --> 01:17:45.560 but it only affects males. It doesn't affect females. Oh I remember, 862 01:17:45.920 --> 01:17:49.880 I now remember the trailer. Okay, so did they project their thoughts 863 01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:57.479 something like that? Yeah? Yeah, So all males project their thoughts as 864 01:17:58.159 --> 01:18:01.119 as something that and the females can sense it. And this goes for animals 865 01:18:01.159 --> 01:18:06.039 as well as humans. So the females can sense the males, but the 866 01:18:06.159 --> 01:18:12.560 females don't project their own thoughts. So, you know, every impulsive thought 867 01:18:12.640 --> 01:18:16.840 that a man has, including about women, you know, like, is 868 01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:25.760 immediately available on display to anyone within earshot, let's say, of the man. 869 01:18:26.279 --> 01:18:33.399 And so this creates this rift in society and there is a psychopath who 870 01:18:35.159 --> 01:18:43.880 wants does not like that women can hear his thoughts, and the women mysteriously 871 01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:47.880 disappear, and that I'm in the third book and that's still not entirely resolved. 872 01:18:47.920 --> 01:18:54.720 I'm still kind of waiting for the reveal of what happened. But yeah, 873 01:18:54.800 --> 01:18:59.520 so there is there. There's there's like this psychopath who needs complete control 874 01:18:59.680 --> 01:19:04.600 and the ability for others to hear thoughts or like, it's it's it's kind 875 01:19:04.640 --> 01:19:10.600 of difficult to explain because of the nature of the sci fi noess of it, 876 01:19:10.760 --> 01:19:15.560 but essentially, settlers land on the planet, the women disappear, the 877 01:19:15.720 --> 01:19:24.199 men can see and hear each other's thoughts, and a woman is discovered in 878 01:19:24.319 --> 01:19:30.000 the woods by the protagonist about like two or three chapters in and and it's 879 01:19:30.039 --> 01:19:33.600 his first encounter with a woman, and and uh, and she is from 880 01:19:34.199 --> 01:19:40.319 the other settlership that had been on its way for a generation. So that's 881 01:19:40.439 --> 01:19:43.560 kind of that doesn't spoil too much, you know, other than the first 882 01:19:44.239 --> 01:19:46.399 you know, it doesn't spoil any more than what's in the trailer for the 883 01:19:46.439 --> 01:19:50.960 movie, right, So I'll just I'll just stick with that because we talked 884 01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:55.359 about it a whole bunch, and I don't want to take up the remainder 885 01:19:55.439 --> 01:19:59.359 of the hour with that. But interesting. Yeah, so Chaos, the 886 01:19:59.479 --> 01:20:03.399 Chaos Wall the book trilogy really interesting to me. We'll we'll see what I 887 01:20:03.439 --> 01:20:06.359 think about it when I finished the third book here, but I'm about two 888 01:20:06.479 --> 01:20:11.840 thirds through the third book and I'm excited to see how things wrapped together, 889 01:20:12.520 --> 01:20:15.880 and I think there's gonna be a twist ending. I'm not sure if I'm 890 01:20:15.880 --> 01:20:21.279 gonna like it or not. All right, Steve, what are your picks? 891 01:20:24.479 --> 01:20:26.760 Well, before we get to the high point of the episode, I 892 01:20:26.840 --> 01:20:31.600 will I do have another semi legit pick. Some blog posts. I came 893 01:20:31.640 --> 01:20:36.479 across a hacker news from Ours Technica and it's one of my favorite topics to 894 01:20:36.560 --> 01:20:41.920 read about. And it's titled how Archaeologists reconstructed the Burning of Jerusalem in five 895 01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:47.960 eighty six BC or BCE, if you're politically correct. Basically in the Old 896 01:20:48.039 --> 01:20:56.399 Testament the King Jim Chronicles. It talks about how Nebbe Canezer came and completely 897 01:20:56.520 --> 01:21:00.640 destroyed Jerusalem in five eighty six. He had captured it and taken off a 898 01:21:00.680 --> 01:21:08.920 lot of the Jews to Babylon, but a couple of the kings that stayed 899 01:21:08.960 --> 01:21:12.439 there decided to try to rebel and he said, screw this, I'm taking 900 01:21:12.439 --> 01:21:16.039 the yell down. And so he basically completely destroyed the city. And so 901 01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:26.000 the article talks about a study that was done there that used analytics of fire 902 01:21:26.920 --> 01:21:31.520 and how fire behaves and a lot of the things we can tell now, 903 01:21:31.960 --> 01:21:36.920 you know, with forensics, and how what fire did to a building to 904 01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:44.319 pretty much nail down the app about that time is when Jerusalem was completely burned 905 01:21:45.680 --> 01:21:49.119 and destroyed. It's really pretty fascinating, especially if you're into fire science as 906 01:21:49.159 --> 01:21:53.560 I am. So anyway, we can put the link in the show notes 907 01:21:53.600 --> 01:21:58.159 for sure. And now it's time for the Dad jokes of the week. 908 01:21:58.520 --> 01:22:00.920 I have been posting for a couple of weeks, sins I've been on vacation, 909 01:22:00.159 --> 01:22:04.399 but I think I can dig up a few that are worthy of being 910 01:22:04.479 --> 01:22:11.920 quoted here. So, in the spirit of Christmas, did anybody hear about 911 01:22:12.039 --> 01:22:15.800 Rudolph's riot on the roller coaster when he went to the amusement park? You 912 01:22:15.880 --> 01:22:24.119 can say he held on for dear life. Now, I am a I 913 01:22:24.239 --> 01:22:29.520 think true pizza aficionadus would call me a heretic and shoot me on site for 914 01:22:29.600 --> 01:22:32.760 saying this that I do like pineapple and pizza. The pine and swine. 915 01:22:33.600 --> 01:22:39.840 Pine and swine aka Canadian bacon and pineapple is for me the best pizza. 916 01:22:40.720 --> 01:22:45.359 So the other day I was cooking some but I actually burned it. I 917 01:22:45.439 --> 01:22:48.840 found out it was you know, it's called the Hawaiian pizza, you know, 918 01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:53.079 as one of the names. I prefer pine and swine. But in 919 01:22:53.159 --> 01:22:56.560 the spirit of Hawaiian pizza, I should have cooked it at aloha temperature. 920 01:22:59.399 --> 01:23:06.359 Right. I love the drones. And then finally, apologies to pets fans, 921 01:23:06.399 --> 01:23:10.199 but I love this one. When I saw it. Does anybody know 922 01:23:10.319 --> 01:23:18.000 why there are no cats on Mars? Because curiosity killed them? All right? 923 01:23:18.199 --> 01:23:23.880 Curiosity is the was on Mars. You know, there's curiosity with the 924 01:23:23.920 --> 01:23:28.359 other one, oh, Discovery, I think, yeah, something was at 925 01:23:28.399 --> 01:23:32.560 the space shuttle. Yeah that was a space shuttle anyway. Anyway, those 926 01:23:32.560 --> 01:23:36.119 are the dad jokes of the week. All right, Dan, what are 927 01:23:36.159 --> 01:23:45.680 your picks? Okay, so I've got to my first pick is and despite 928 01:23:45.840 --> 01:23:49.840 your frequent recommendations, Chuck, we've not really I've not really been into board 929 01:23:49.920 --> 01:23:57.640 games that much. But now, as as a birthday present our kids bought 930 01:23:57.800 --> 01:24:01.800 us settlers of Katan. Is that how you guys pronounce it? Uh? 931 01:24:01.960 --> 01:24:05.239 And and we've been playing it like, uh, you know, in the 932 01:24:05.319 --> 01:24:12.920 family and it's been lots of fun. I've yet to win, but uh, 933 01:24:13.520 --> 01:24:16.880 I'm trying. Uh and uh it's very enjoyable. Uh. And it's 934 01:24:16.920 --> 01:24:21.439 a good game. I really like it. So so yeah, we will 935 01:24:21.479 --> 01:24:26.680 see how long we're able to persist. Uh. We play it like once 936 01:24:26.720 --> 01:24:31.359 a week something like that. We have a game night. And so that's 937 01:24:31.479 --> 01:24:35.239 that would be my first pick. My second is, you know, as 938 01:24:35.520 --> 01:24:40.119 as everybody in the world knows, there's a war going on here, and 939 01:24:40.399 --> 01:24:45.680 everybody seems to be picking sides. And what I've what I've noticed is that 940 01:24:45.880 --> 01:24:53.119 a lot of people don't really have the context. They they don't know the 941 01:24:53.319 --> 01:25:00.199 history. Now it's it's you don't have to know the history to have an 942 01:25:00.239 --> 01:25:04.680 opinion. You can certainly have opinions about things that are happening, you know, 943 01:25:04.880 --> 01:25:10.439 at present, without you know, thinking about what happened fifty one hundred 944 01:25:10.520 --> 01:25:17.079 years ago. But I do think that having more contexts usually is helpful. 945 01:25:17.760 --> 01:25:25.439 And in what I would like to pick is this documentary Israeli documentary. So 946 01:25:25.600 --> 01:25:29.000 I can't you know, say about it that it's objective, it's from the 947 01:25:29.520 --> 01:25:32.800 Israeli perspective, but it does try to be even handed. I have to 948 01:25:32.880 --> 01:25:39.880 say. It's a documentary that came out in the eighties called Pillar of Fire. 949 01:25:40.479 --> 01:25:46.119 It starts when Zionism started in the like eighteen seventies and goes all the 950 01:25:46.199 --> 01:25:55.000 way to the founding of Israel and a bit after that. And there's an 951 01:25:55.079 --> 01:25:59.920 English version that you can find on YouTube. By the way, one big 952 01:26:00.119 --> 01:26:03.560 advantage of the fact that it was done in the eighties is that they could 953 01:26:03.960 --> 01:26:09.479 still interview people who were there or you know, even as kids. You 954 01:26:09.520 --> 01:26:14.760 know people or have you know, deceased since then. And what's really great 955 01:26:14.840 --> 01:26:19.840 about this series is that they were able to uncover a lot of original, 956 01:26:20.479 --> 01:26:26.840 uh, you know, films from from the various periods. So it's it's 957 01:26:26.920 --> 01:26:31.000 really great in that regard, uh And it was, you know, it's 958 01:26:31.119 --> 01:26:36.119 really good. I highly recommend it. So again I can't say that it's 959 01:26:36.399 --> 01:26:43.079 like objective or you know, you won't get as much of the error perspective 960 01:26:43.079 --> 01:26:45.760 as you would get of the Jewish perspective. But still again I think, 961 01:26:45.960 --> 01:26:51.640 you know, they do try to present all the facts, and it's it's 962 01:26:51.760 --> 01:26:58.399 highly recommended for anybody who's really interested. So I link a link to the 963 01:26:58.560 --> 01:27:01.960 first a link to the search in YouTube that will find it. You will 964 01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:08.279 see like episodes two and three there. I don't know if all the episodes 965 01:27:08.319 --> 01:27:12.479 are on YouTube, but I think at least the first four or five are 966 01:27:12.560 --> 01:27:20.079 there. So it's as I said, I highly recommend that. And those 967 01:27:20.119 --> 01:27:26.199 would be my picks for today. Awesome. I'll jump in here with a 968 01:27:26.279 --> 01:27:30.920 few of mine. Let me get that in the comments so people can find 969 01:27:30.960 --> 01:27:35.680 it on the YouTube video. All right, So the first one is I 970 01:27:35.880 --> 01:27:41.479 am excited to be going to another board game convention. This is my first 971 01:27:41.560 --> 01:27:45.319 time at this one. If you all remember Joe Eames used to be on 972 01:27:45.399 --> 01:27:49.560 the show, he and his wife would often go to this one. It's 973 01:27:49.600 --> 01:27:55.560 called Salt Con and it's here in Utah. It's up in Davis County, 974 01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:00.319 so it's like an hour a little more than an hour from here at the 975 01:28:00.399 --> 01:28:04.279 convention center up there, and uh yeah, it's four days. It goes 976 01:28:04.319 --> 01:28:10.399 Thursday through Sunday, and it's the same deal as most of the other ones. 977 01:28:10.479 --> 01:28:12.479 Right, You just go and you play a bunch of board games, 978 01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:15.800 A couple of my friends are going, so we're all gonna I think we'll 979 01:28:15.840 --> 01:28:19.279 hang out some of the time and then just go find fun games the rest 980 01:28:19.319 --> 01:28:23.319 of the time, you know, maybe without each other, but it'll be 981 01:28:23.399 --> 01:28:26.039 fun. I'm really really looking forward to it. So I'm gonna pick that 982 01:28:27.159 --> 01:28:30.800 as one of the board game picks that I have, and then I really 983 01:28:30.840 --> 01:28:33.920 do feel like I ought to pick a board game my So we played this 984 01:28:34.039 --> 01:28:36.239 with my kids last night. I know I've picked it here before. It's 985 01:28:36.239 --> 01:28:44.840 called Mysterium, and effectively, you've got this ghost who's trying to give clues 986 01:28:44.920 --> 01:28:53.279 to a set of psychics regarding the murders that have happened in this house. 987 01:28:53.479 --> 01:28:58.720 And then if the psychics all solve the murderers, each solve their own murder, 988 01:28:59.039 --> 01:29:03.880 you know, the murder that's assigned to them. Then then the ghost, 989 01:29:04.319 --> 01:29:09.239 which is just another player, gives the final clue, which is a 990 01:29:09.359 --> 01:29:14.960 clue to the their own murder. Right, so one of the murders of 991 01:29:15.359 --> 01:29:18.279 the murders that the ghost is getting clues to is their own murder. And 992 01:29:18.920 --> 01:29:23.359 anyway, it's been a lot of fun to play. It says play times 993 01:29:23.359 --> 01:29:29.239 about forty two minutes. I think we've played. Every time we've played it 994 01:29:29.239 --> 01:29:31.359 has been an hour, maybe a little longer. It has a board game 995 01:29:31.439 --> 01:29:38.520 weight of one point nine, so, you know, it's kind of a 996 01:29:38.600 --> 01:29:45.600 party game, casual gamer level game. And yeah, anyway, the clues 997 01:29:45.600 --> 01:29:48.119 are basically cards that have just random pictures on it, so you're trying to 998 01:29:48.560 --> 01:29:53.159 the ghost is trying to pass these clues over to the psychics, and then 999 01:29:53.159 --> 01:29:57.640 the psychics have to figure out what in the picture would lead them to pick 1000 01:29:57.680 --> 01:30:01.600 the right culprit, the right location, or the right murder weapon. And 1001 01:30:02.439 --> 01:30:05.000 yeah, I've been the ghost a couple of times, and I've you know, 1002 01:30:05.079 --> 01:30:08.560 I've played as the psychic, you know, one of the psychics a 1003 01:30:08.600 --> 01:30:13.279 bunch of times. And it's tricky because a lot of times what you wind 1004 01:30:13.399 --> 01:30:15.079 up doing is you wind up getting a card or passing your card. It 1005 01:30:15.199 --> 01:30:20.760 has one or two elements in the card that indicate the thing that you're trying 1006 01:30:20.840 --> 01:30:24.520 to get them to pick up on. But it's got a whole bunch of 1007 01:30:24.560 --> 01:30:27.239 other stuff going on, right, They're all kind of random, weird, 1008 01:30:28.119 --> 01:30:30.239 you know cards. So anyway, it is fun. It's a lot of 1009 01:30:30.319 --> 01:30:35.880 fun. A few other things I'm just kind of giving people some context for 1010 01:30:36.800 --> 01:30:41.600 where we're going with Top End devs Now, I want to preface this just 1011 01:30:41.680 --> 01:30:45.640 by saying I had kind of a major family event happened right before Christmas, 1012 01:30:47.800 --> 01:30:50.920 and so I have been dealing with the fallout of that and helping my mom 1013 01:30:51.039 --> 01:30:56.279 figure out some of the fallout from that. And I was going to have 1014 01:30:56.359 --> 01:30:58.920 all this stuff ready by the beginning of the year, and so I'm playing 1015 01:30:58.920 --> 01:31:00.960 a little bit of catch up. But by the time this comes out, 1016 01:31:00.479 --> 01:31:04.359 you should be able to sign up. You can get there the premium podcast 1017 01:31:04.479 --> 01:31:10.399 episodes that don't have the ads in them for each of our shows. But 1018 01:31:11.079 --> 01:31:15.159 the other thing that I'm doing is every month I'm gonna have a producer call, 1019 01:31:15.279 --> 01:31:17.359 And so if you're if you buy the premium membership, you're a producer 1020 01:31:17.840 --> 01:31:20.000 and you can get on the call and you can talk to us about, 1021 01:31:20.039 --> 01:31:24.319 Hey, you haven't done a show on this, or hey, I think 1022 01:31:24.359 --> 01:31:27.199 it'd be really great if you talk to this person. Right, So, 1023 01:31:27.399 --> 01:31:30.680 maybe there's something we didn't cover with Mishiko hevery, or maybe we should get 1024 01:31:30.960 --> 01:31:35.479 Adi Smani back on, or you know, maybe you know there's some thing 1025 01:31:35.640 --> 01:31:40.239 that you know is inspired by one of Dan's polls, right, so you 1026 01:31:40.279 --> 01:31:43.479 can get on the call and you can tell me, I'm gonna invite these 1027 01:31:43.520 --> 01:31:45.199 guys, but I don't know what their schedules all look like, so I 1028 01:31:45.439 --> 01:31:48.920 can't guarantee anything that way, but you know, then then we'll get those 1029 01:31:48.920 --> 01:31:53.119 scheduled and so you can kind of have a voice in what we talk about 1030 01:31:53.159 --> 01:31:58.159 on the show. The other thing I'm putting together is I'm putting together videos 1031 01:31:59.279 --> 01:32:02.960 for be JavaScript and React, and those are going to come out every week. 1032 01:32:03.159 --> 01:32:06.760 And what I'm doing is I'm just building apps, and then we'll talk 1033 01:32:06.800 --> 01:32:11.960 about some of the ideas or ins and outs of any libraries or techniques or 1034 01:32:11.960 --> 01:32:15.199 anything that I used to build them. So you know, the React ones 1035 01:32:15.239 --> 01:32:17.359 are obviously going to be React. If it's not React and it's JavaScript, 1036 01:32:18.079 --> 01:32:23.319 I think I'm going to build a discord bot in JavaScript for the JavaScript one, 1037 01:32:24.720 --> 01:32:29.079 and then for the Ruby one, I've got a library I want to 1038 01:32:29.119 --> 01:32:30.760 modify. There are a couple of apps I want to build, and I 1039 01:32:30.800 --> 01:32:32.840 may or may not build them in rails, so that kind of gives you 1040 01:32:32.880 --> 01:32:38.920 an idea. And then finally, if you're looking for content from other experts 1041 01:32:38.960 --> 01:32:42.720 that you can participate in more of kind of a I don't want to say 1042 01:32:42.760 --> 01:32:44.880 webinar, but it's kind of a webinar, but it's also going to have 1043 01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:47.640 a very strong Q and A element to it. Then you can go check 1044 01:32:47.680 --> 01:32:54.000 out JavaScript Geniuses. I'm doing that for JavaScript and React as well, but 1045 01:32:54.119 --> 01:32:57.039 you can get the JavaScript Geniuses and you can just show up every week and 1046 01:32:57.159 --> 01:33:00.600 we'll either do a Q and A or we'll have an expert on or you 1047 01:33:00.640 --> 01:33:03.319 know, something like that. So it's kind of like your JavaScript meetup, 1048 01:33:03.399 --> 01:33:09.439 except it'll be online and we're gonna make sure we have networking events so you 1049 01:33:09.520 --> 01:33:12.560 can get to know each other because I feel like that's a critical part of 1050 01:33:12.960 --> 01:33:15.600 having a successful career these days. So anyway, putting all that together, 1051 01:33:17.800 --> 01:33:23.600 if you go to JavaScript jabber dot com Slash Premium, you can see where 1052 01:33:23.640 --> 01:33:29.479 to get onto the premium podcast. The other one is called JavaScript what is 1053 01:33:29.520 --> 01:33:32.520 it JavaScript Clips? I think is what I called it, JavaScript Clips, 1054 01:33:32.720 --> 01:33:35.640 and then JavaScript Geniuses and I have the domain, so if you go to 1055 01:33:35.640 --> 01:33:41.039 the domains, it'll take sign up pages. So anyway, that's that's what 1056 01:33:41.119 --> 01:33:45.680 I got for picks. Yeah, I don't think there's anything else, so 1057 01:33:45.720 --> 01:33:49.159 we'll go ahead and wrap it up until next time folks max out