rlemon

Why the jQuery Abstraction isn't needed.

(One needs some form of browser normalization so that modern features works, no-one is doubting that).

Abstractions that aren't needed

Selectors

QSA works (shim=sizzle). Besides selectors are generally bad practice. Favour node traversal, gEBI, gEBTN and gEBCN. (shim=domShim)

rlemon

So, you want to send a motherfucking XMLHttpRequest (XHR, or commonly and falsly known as AJAX.) Too bad, just ran out of motherfucking XMLHttpRequests; but I still have one regular. XHR is not magic. It does not autofuckinmagically send things the way you want them do be sent. It does not do the thinking for you. It just sends an Http Request.

You get a hold on such a prime beast like this:

rlemon

NodeList.prototype.forEach = HTMLCollection.prototype.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach;
NodeList.prototype.map = HTMLCollection.prototype.map = Array.prototype.map;
NodeList.prototype.filter = HTMLCollection.prototype.filter = Array.prototype.filter;
NodeList.prototype.reduce = HTMLCollection.prototype.reduce = Array.prototype.reduce;
NodeList.prototype.every = HTMLCollection.prototype.every = Array.prototype.every;
NodeList.prototype.some = HTMLCollection.prototype.some = Array.prototype.some;
var By = { 
    id: function (id) { return document.getElementById(id) }, 
    tag: function (tag, context) { 
        return (context || document).getElementsByTagName(tag)

rlemon

var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = '.vote-count-container.stars span.img, span.vote-count-container.sidebar-vote.owner-star.stars span.img, span.vote-count-container.sidebar-vote.user-star.stars span.img { background-image: url("http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6d8ebb117e8d83d74ea95fbdd0f87e13?s=16&d=identicon&r=PG"); background-position: 0px 0px; height: 16px; width: 16px;} .user-star span.img { outline: 1px solid #ff0; }'; document.head.appendChild(style);

rlemon

This indirection was intended to make the language seem more familiar to classically trained programmers, but failed to do that, as we can see from the very low opinion Java programmers have of JavaScript. JavaScript's constructor pattern did not appeal to the classical crowd. It also obscured JavaScript's true prototypal nature. As a result, there are very few programmers who know how to use the language effectively.

~ Douglas Crockford, "Prototypal Inheritance"

The indirection Mr. Crockford refers to here is the Pseudo-Classical Pattern, also known as the Constructor Pattern. This is a way of simulating classical inheritance in JavaScript - a prototypal language.

If it wasn't obvious from both the title of this post, and from the frankly negative quote above, this is not my favorite object-oriented pattern in JavaScript. I'

rlemon

http://jsperf.com/fillorpath

http://jsperf.com/single-rects

~

http://jsperf.com/distancesquared

http://jsperf.com/mozopaque

rlemon

$(function () {
    "use strict";

    // for better performance - to avoid searching in DOM
    var content = $('#content');
    var input = $('#input');
    var status = $('#status');

    // my color assigned by the server
    var myColor = false;

rlemon

So you have a javascript function.

function func () {}

It accepts a value.

function func (param) {}

rlemon

body {
  background-color : #000 !important;
  background-image : url("http://raw.github.com/oliversalzburg/se-chat-dark-theme/master/img/skewed_print.png") !important;
  color            : #ddd !important;
}

.messages {
  background-color : #222 !important;
  border           : none !important;
  color            : #ddd !important;

rlemon

// ==UserScript==
// @name          SO Dark Chat + JS
// @author        Robert Lemon
// @version       0.1.1
// @namespace     
// @description   adds colors to users messages and a whole bunch of other crap.
// @include       http://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/*
// @include       http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/*
// ==/UserScript==
(function () {