librelist archives

« back to archive

F~~~ up

F~~~ up

From:
Jj Halans
Date:
2011-01-22 @ 12:27
Something for next month. 
What does this one do?

($=[$=[]][(__=!$+$)[_=-~-~-~$]+({}+$)[_/_]+
($$=($_=!''+$)[_/_]+$_[+$])])()[__[_/_]+__
[_+~$]+$_[_]+$$](_/_)

Guess by next month everyone would know...


It's from "XSS Street-Fight" Blackhat DC preso
Maybe Sharkie could explain this next time: 
http://adamcecc.blogspot.com/2011/01/javascript.html

JJ Halans

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Lachlan Hardy
Date:
2011-01-22 @ 23:19
Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?

I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read
the explanation.

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Jared W
Date:
2011-01-22 @ 23:26
The thing that throws me is why an invocation of sort is returning window.
I am guessing that it returns this; for whatever reason.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Lachlan Hardy
<lachlan@lachstock.com.au> wrote:
> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>
> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read
> the explanation.
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Jared W
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 01:17
Makes sense to the spec. (finally got the desire to look it up)

Let obj be the result of calling ToObject passing the this value as the argument
...(few implementation details)...
2. Return obj.


clever.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Jared W <Jared.Wyles@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing that throws me is why an invocation of sort is returning window.
> I am guessing that it returns this; for whatever reason.
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Lachlan Hardy
> <lachlan@lachstock.com.au> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>
>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read
>> the explanation.
>>
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Steve Haffenden
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 22:03
That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote 
something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my 
presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might 
be worth a look if you are interested:

https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket


-------------------------------
Steve Haffenden
Technical Manager

Interesting Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au


-----Original Message-----
From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy
Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
To: sydjs@librelist.com
Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?

I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
explanation.

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Steve Gilles
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 22:44
On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
question featured at last week's SydJS?

Steve

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden
<steve@interesting.com.au>wrote:

> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
> worth a look if you are interested:
>
> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Steve Haffenden
> Technical Manager
>
> Interesting Pty Ltd
> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
> Lachlan Hardy
> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
> To: sydjs@librelist.com
> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>
> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>
> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
> explanation.
>
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Marcin Szczepanski
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 22:57
Off the top of my head it was:

var thingie = (function(x) { delete x; return x; })(1); alert(thingie);

The second version replaced delete x with delete arguments[0]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles <steve@stevegilles.com> wrote:

> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
> question featured at last week's SydJS?
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden <steve@interesting.com.au
> > wrote:
>
>> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
>> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
>> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
>> worth a look if you are interested:
>>
>> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Steve Haffenden
>> Technical Manager
>>
>> Interesting Pty Ltd
>> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
>> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
>> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lachlan Hardy
>> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
>> To: sydjs@librelist.com
>> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>>
>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>
>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
>> explanation.
>>
>>
>


-- 
M.

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Cameron Barrie
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 22:55
Didn't it go something alongs the lines of

function foo(a, b){
  delete a;
  return a;
}

What will foo(1, 2) return?

And the answer was 1, since the argument a is protected inside the scope 
of the function? However you could delete it by using the arguments 
keyword and directly accessing the variable, since that protection is not 
available there?

-C



On 24/01/2011, at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles wrote:

> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the 
question featured at last week's SydJS?
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden 
<steve@interesting.com.au> wrote:
> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote 
something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my 
presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might 
be worth a look if you are interested:
> 
> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> Steve Haffenden
> Technical Manager
> 
> Interesting Pty Ltd
> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of 
Lachlan Hardy
> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
> To: sydjs@librelist.com
> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
> 
> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read 
the explanation.
> 
> 

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Julio Cesar Ody
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:26
On the topic of JavaScript questions, how about we make them more
useful and less illustrative of JavaScripts shitty parts?  :)   it
might appeal more to people who are not necessarily into reading the
spec all the time to find out why something clearly unintuitive is so.

Crude example: how to add a "before filter" pattern to any method:

window.Foo = {
  message: function(arg) {
    console.log(arg);
  }
};
// Cool, so Foo.message('a message') outputs "a message" to the console.

// For the sake of this example, say we wanna write "bar" to the
console before Foo.message prints it's message
(function(foo) {
  Foo.foo = function() { console.log('bar'); foo.apply(Foo, arguments); }
})(Foo.foo)

// Foo.message('foo');
// => "bar"
// => "foo"

Now what could be the question for the next meetup: how to extend
Function.prototype so one can go

Foo.message.before(function() { alert('test'); });

You know, stuff that people writing apps could eventually need  :)


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles <steve@stevegilles.com> wrote:
> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
> question featured at last week's SydJS?
> Steve
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden <steve@interesting.com.au>
> wrote:
>>
>> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
>> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
>> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
>> worth a look if you are interested:
>>
>> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Steve Haffenden
>> Technical Manager
>>
>> Interesting Pty Ltd
>> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
>> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
>> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
>> Lachlan Hardy
>> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
>> To: sydjs@librelist.com
>> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>>
>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>
>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
>> explanation.
>>
>
>



-- 
http://awesomebydesign.com

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Cameron Barrie
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:35
I think the point though Julio is to illustrate some of Javascripts gotchas.
Which generally come from it's unexpected or "shitty" parts.

I know I've been bitten once or twice by some of the things that have been
shown at the sydjs nights. 
Whilst I agree that it doesn't illustrate the nice parts of javascript.
It does help people newer to javascript to know about some of the gotchas 
with that language, and let's face it, there's a few of them.

Maybe though we need a shit bits, and good bits examples each month though?

-Cam

On 24/01/2011, at 10:26 AM, Julio Cesar Ody wrote:

> On the topic of JavaScript questions, how about we make them more
> useful and less illustrative of JavaScripts shitty parts?  :)   it
> might appeal more to people who are not necessarily into reading the
> spec all the time to find out why something clearly unintuitive is so.
> 
> Crude example: how to add a "before filter" pattern to any method:
> 
> window.Foo = {
>  message: function(arg) {
>    console.log(arg);
>  }
> };
> // Cool, so Foo.message('a message') outputs "a message" to the console.
> 
> // For the sake of this example, say we wanna write "bar" to the
> console before Foo.message prints it's message
> (function(foo) {
>  Foo.foo = function() { console.log('bar'); foo.apply(Foo, arguments); }
> })(Foo.foo)
> 
> // Foo.message('foo');
> // => "bar"
> // => "foo"
> 
> Now what could be the question for the next meetup: how to extend
> Function.prototype so one can go
> 
> Foo.message.before(function() { alert('test'); });
> 
> You know, stuff that people writing apps could eventually need  :)
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles <steve@stevegilles.com> wrote:
>> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
>> question featured at last week's SydJS?
>> Steve
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden <steve@interesting.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
>>> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
>>> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
>>> worth a look if you are interested:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------
>>> Steve Haffenden
>>> Technical Manager
>>> 
>>> Interesting Pty Ltd
>>> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
>>> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
>>> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Lachlan Hardy
>>> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
>>> To: sydjs@librelist.com
>>> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>> 
>>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
>>> explanation.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://awesomebydesign.com

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Julio Cesar Ody
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:42
Cool. That would be, in my opinion, leaps and bounds better than the
status quo. Read: gotchas and nothing else.

Because these gotchas are in fact pretty inane, and most of them are
solvable by a bit of Googling or even asking a question in an emailing
list such as this one.

Other examples: how to write an effective assert() method one can use
for testing. See, even if one just copies and pastes the solution,
it's still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
it shouldn't, if it were a bit more mature  :)



On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Cameron Barrie
<camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the point though Julio is to illustrate some of Javascripts gotchas.
> Which generally come from it's unexpected or "shitty" parts.
>
> I know I've been bitten once or twice by some of the things that have 
been shown at the sydjs nights.
> Whilst I agree that it doesn't illustrate the nice parts of javascript.
> It does help people newer to javascript to know about some of the 
gotchas with that language, and let's face it, there's a few of them.
>
> Maybe though we need a shit bits, and good bits examples each month though?
>
> -Cam
>
> On 24/01/2011, at 10:26 AM, Julio Cesar Ody wrote:
>
>> On the topic of JavaScript questions, how about we make them more
>> useful and less illustrative of JavaScripts shitty parts?  :)   it
>> might appeal more to people who are not necessarily into reading the
>> spec all the time to find out why something clearly unintuitive is so.
>>
>> Crude example: how to add a "before filter" pattern to any method:
>>
>> window.Foo = {
>>  message: function(arg) {
>>    console.log(arg);
>>  }
>> };
>> // Cool, so Foo.message('a message') outputs "a message" to the console.
>>
>> // For the sake of this example, say we wanna write "bar" to the
>> console before Foo.message prints it's message
>> (function(foo) {
>>  Foo.foo = function() { console.log('bar'); foo.apply(Foo, arguments); }
>> })(Foo.foo)
>>
>> // Foo.message('foo');
>> // => "bar"
>> // => "foo"
>>
>> Now what could be the question for the next meetup: how to extend
>> Function.prototype so one can go
>>
>> Foo.message.before(function() { alert('test'); });
>>
>> You know, stuff that people writing apps could eventually need  :)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles <steve@stevegilles.com> wrote:
>>> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
>>> question featured at last week's SydJS?
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden <steve@interesting.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
>>>> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
>>>> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
>>>> worth a look if you are interested:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> Steve Haffenden
>>>> Technical Manager
>>>>
>>>> Interesting Pty Ltd
>>>> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
>>>> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
>>>> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
>>>> Lachlan Hardy
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
>>>> To: sydjs@librelist.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>>>
>>>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
>>>> explanation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://awesomebydesign.com
>
>



-- 
http://awesomebydesign.com

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Jared W
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:47
I disagree. Things like function hoisting, and the oddities around
delete are not very discussed topics.
They need to be discussed as they can introduce non obvious issues
into your code.

Especially things like typeof a; if(false) { var a = 10; }

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Julio Cesar Ody <julioody@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool. That would be, in my opinion, leaps and bounds better than the
> status quo. Read: gotchas and nothing else.
>
> Because these gotchas are in fact pretty inane, and most of them are
> solvable by a bit of Googling or even asking a question in an emailing
> list such as this one.
>
> Other examples: how to write an effective assert() method one can use
> for testing. See, even if one just copies and pastes the solution,
> it's still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
> it shouldn't, if it were a bit more mature  :)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Cameron Barrie
> <camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the point though Julio is to illustrate some of Javascripts gotchas.
>> Which generally come from it's unexpected or "shitty" parts.
>>
>> I know I've been bitten once or twice by some of the things that have 
been shown at the sydjs nights.
>> Whilst I agree that it doesn't illustrate the nice parts of javascript.
>> It does help people newer to javascript to know about some of the 
gotchas with that language, and let's face it, there's a few of them.
>>
>> Maybe though we need a shit bits, and good bits examples each month though?
>>
>> -Cam
>>
>> On 24/01/2011, at 10:26 AM, Julio Cesar Ody wrote:
>>
>>> On the topic of JavaScript questions, how about we make them more
>>> useful and less illustrative of JavaScripts shitty parts?  :)   it
>>> might appeal more to people who are not necessarily into reading the
>>> spec all the time to find out why something clearly unintuitive is so.
>>>
>>> Crude example: how to add a "before filter" pattern to any method:
>>>
>>> window.Foo = {
>>>  message: function(arg) {
>>>    console.log(arg);
>>>  }
>>> };
>>> // Cool, so Foo.message('a message') outputs "a message" to the console.
>>>
>>> // For the sake of this example, say we wanna write "bar" to the
>>> console before Foo.message prints it's message
>>> (function(foo) {
>>>  Foo.foo = function() { console.log('bar'); foo.apply(Foo, arguments); }
>>> })(Foo.foo)
>>>
>>> // Foo.message('foo');
>>> // => "bar"
>>> // => "foo"
>>>
>>> Now what could be the question for the next meetup: how to extend
>>> Function.prototype so one can go
>>>
>>> Foo.message.before(function() { alert('test'); });
>>>
>>> You know, stuff that people writing apps could eventually need  :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Steve Gilles <steve@stevegilles.com> wrote:
>>>> On the topic of JavaScript questions, does anyone have a copy of the
>>>> question featured at last week's SydJS?
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Steve Haffenden <steve@interesting.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That code is amazing, I was fair blown away by it. Strangely, I wrote
>>>>> something not too dissimilar a few months ago when I was preparing my
>>>>> presentation on types. Nowhere near as  elegant you understand, but might be
>>>>> worth a look if you are interested:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/Rosencrantz/UpTheBracket
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>> Steve Haffenden
>>>>> Technical Manager
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting Pty Ltd
>>>>> Ph: +61 (0)2 9251 2875
>>>>> Mb: +61 (0)420 684 405
>>>>> Wb: http://www.interesting.com.au
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: sydjs@librelist.com [mailto:sydjs@librelist.com] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Lachlan Hardy
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, 23 January 2011 10:20 AM
>>>>> To: sydjs@librelist.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's pretty amazing, huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still dissecting it to actually *understand* rather than just read the
>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://awesomebydesign.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://awesomebydesign.com
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Cameron Barrie
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:49
> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
> it shouldn'
Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The Good Parts.

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Julio Cesar Ody
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:54
Yeah, really. I got the impression that so far, every question was
just an illustration of how JS could work better.

Which is, as Jared said, useful. Though focusing on that is dull, the
way I see it. So sure, keep on, but useful tidbits are not only fun
but also... useful.




On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Cameron Barrie
<camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
>> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
>> it shouldn'
> Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
> In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The 
Good Parts.
>



-- 
http://awesomebydesign.com

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Chris Darroch
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:59
Speaking of f'd up JavaScript, I dare you all to run this:

゚ω゚ノ= /`m´)ノ ~┻━┻   //*´∇`*/ ['_']; o=(゚ー゚)  =_=3; c=(゚Θ゚) =(゚ー゚)-(゚ー゚);
(゚Д゚) =(゚Θ゚)= (o^_^o)/ (o^_^o);(゚Д゚)={゚Θ゚: '_' ,゚ω゚ノ : ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_')
[゚Θ゚] ,゚ー゚ノ :(゚ω゚ノ+ '_')[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)] ,゚Д゚ノ:((゚ー゚==3) +'_')[゚ー゚] }; (゚Д゚)
[゚Θ゚] =((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [c^_^o];(゚Д゚) ['c'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [
(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)-(゚Θ゚) ];(゚Д゚) ['o'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚o゚)=(゚Д゚) ['c']+(゚Д゚)
['o']+(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[゚Θ゚]+ ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [゚ー゚] + ((゚Д゚) +'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+
((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [(゚ー゚) - (゚Θ゚)]+(゚Д゚)
['c']+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+ (゚Д゚) ['o']+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚Д゚)
['_'] =(o^_^o) [゚o゚] [゚o゚];(゚ε゚)=((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚Д゚)
.゚Д゚ノ+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚) + (゚ー゚)]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [o^_^o -゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3)
+'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚ω゚ノ +'_') [゚Θ゚]; (゚ー゚)+=(゚Θ゚); (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]='\\';
(゚Д゚).゚Θ゚ノ=(゚Д゚+ ゚ー゚)[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)];(o゚ー゚o)=(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[c^_^o];(゚Д゚)
[゚o゚]='\"';(゚Д゚) ['_'] ( (゚Д゚) ['_'] (゚ε゚+(゚Д゚)[゚o゚]+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+
((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
(゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+
(゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) +
(o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
(゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+
(o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚)
+ (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (o^_^o)+
(゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
(c^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
(o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚o゚]) (゚Θ゚)) ('_');

...just don't do it in a window you have useful things open in ^.^


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Julio Cesar Ody <julioody@gmail.com>wrote:

> Yeah, really. I got the impression that so far, every question was
> just an illustration of how JS could work better.
>
> Which is, as Jared said, useful. Though focusing on that is dull, the
> way I see it. So sure, keep on, but useful tidbits are not only fun
> but also... useful.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Cameron Barrie
> <camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
> >> it shouldn'
> > Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
> > In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The
> Good Parts.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://awesomebydesign.com
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
freshtonic@gmail.com
Date:
2011-01-24 @ 00:08
I just see blonde, brunette, redhead - after a while you just don't see the
code.

On 24 January 2011 10:59, Chris Darroch <chris@chrisdarroch.com> wrote:

> Speaking of f'd up JavaScript, I dare you all to run this:
>
> ゚ω゚ノ= /`m´)ノ ~┻━┻   //*´∇`*/ ['_']; o=(゚ー゚)  =_=3; c=(゚Θ゚) =(゚ー゚)-(゚ー゚);
> (゚Д゚) =(゚Θ゚)= (o^_^o)/ (o^_^o);(゚Д゚)={゚Θ゚: '_' ,゚ω゚ノ : ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_')
> [゚Θ゚] ,゚ー゚ノ :(゚ω゚ノ+ '_')[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)] ,゚Д゚ノ:((゚ー゚==3) +'_')[゚ー゚] }; (゚Д゚)
> [゚Θ゚] =((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [c^_^o];(゚Д゚) ['c'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [
> (゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)-(゚Θ゚) ];(゚Д゚) ['o'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚o゚)=(゚Д゚) ['c']+(゚Д゚)
> ['o']+(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[゚Θ゚]+ ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [゚ー゚] + ((゚Д゚) +'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+
> ((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [(゚ー゚) - (゚Θ゚)]+(゚Д゚)
> ['c']+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+ (゚Д゚) ['o']+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚Д゚)
> ['_'] =(o^_^o) [゚o゚] [゚o゚];(゚ε゚)=((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚Д゚)
> .゚Д゚ノ+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚) + (゚ー゚)]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [o^_^o -゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3)
> +'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚ω゚ノ +'_') [゚Θ゚]; (゚ー゚)+=(゚Θ゚); (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]='\\';
> (゚Д゚).゚Θ゚ノ=(゚Д゚+ ゚ー゚)[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)];(o゚ー゚o)=(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[c^_^o];(゚Д゚)
> [゚o゚]='\"';(゚Д゚) ['_'] ( (゚Д゚) ['_'] (゚ε゚+(゚Д゚)[゚o゚]+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+
> ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
> (゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+
> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) +
> (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+
> (o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚)
> + (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (o^_^o)+
> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
> (c^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
> (o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚o゚]) (゚Θ゚)) ('_');
>
> ...just don't do it in a window you have useful things open in ^.^
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Julio Cesar Ody <julioody@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, really. I got the impression that so far, every question was
>> just an illustration of how JS could work better.
>>
>> Which is, as Jared said, useful. Though focusing on that is dull, the
>> way I see it. So sure, keep on, but useful tidbits are not only fun
>> but also... useful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Cameron Barrie
>> <camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
>> >> it shouldn'
>> > Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
>> > In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The
>> Good Parts.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://awesomebydesign.com
>>
>
>


-- 
James

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Steve Haffenden
Date:
2011-01-24 @ 00:50
Dear god, the humanity... that is some crazy, crazy code...

http://utf-8.jp/public/aaencode.html

Yikes.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, freshtonic@gmail.com <freshtonic@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I just see blonde, brunette, redhead - after a while you just don't see the
> code.
>
>
> On 24 January 2011 10:59, Chris Darroch <chris@chrisdarroch.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of f'd up JavaScript, I dare you all to run this:
>>
>> ゚ω゚ノ= /`m´)ノ ~┻━┻   //*´∇`*/ ['_']; o=(゚ー゚)  =_=3; c=(゚Θ゚) =(゚ー゚)-(゚ー゚);
>> (゚Д゚) =(゚Θ゚)= (o^_^o)/ (o^_^o);(゚Д゚)={゚Θ゚: '_' ,゚ω゚ノ : ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_')
>> [゚Θ゚] ,゚ー゚ノ :(゚ω゚ノ+ '_')[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)] ,゚Д゚ノ:((゚ー゚==3) +'_')[゚ー゚] }; (゚Д゚)
>> [゚Θ゚] =((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [c^_^o];(゚Д゚) ['c'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [
>> (゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)-(゚Θ゚) ];(゚Д゚) ['o'] = ((゚Д゚)+'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚o゚)=(゚Д゚) ['c']+(゚Д゚)
>> ['o']+(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[゚Θ゚]+ ((゚ω゚ノ==3) +'_') [゚ー゚] + ((゚Д゚) +'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+
>> ((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [(゚ー゚) - (゚Θ゚)]+(゚Д゚)
>> ['c']+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚)+(゚ー゚)]+ (゚Д゚) ['o']+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚];(゚Д゚)
>> ['_'] =(o^_^o) [゚o゚] [゚o゚];(゚ε゚)=((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚Д゚)
>> .゚Д゚ノ+((゚Д゚)+'_') [(゚ー゚) + (゚ー゚)]+((゚ー゚==3) +'_') [o^_^o -゚Θ゚]+((゚ー゚==3)
>> +'_') [゚Θ゚]+ (゚ω゚ノ +'_') [゚Θ゚]; (゚ー゚)+=(゚Θ゚); (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]='\\';
>> (゚Д゚).゚Θ゚ノ=(゚Д゚+ ゚ー゚)[o^_^o -(゚Θ゚)];(o゚ー゚o)=(゚ω゚ノ +'_')[c^_^o];(゚Д゚)
>> [゚o゚]='\"';(゚Д゚) ['_'] ( (゚Д゚) ['_'] (゚ε゚+(゚Д゚)[゚o゚]+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+
>> ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
>> (゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+
>> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) +
>> (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
>> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+
>> (o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚ー゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((゚ー゚)
>> + (゚Θ゚))+ ((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ ((o^_^o) +(o^_^o))+ (o^_^o)+
>> (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+(゚Θ゚)+ (゚ー゚)+ ((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+
>> (c^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (゚Θ゚))+ (゚Θ゚)+ (゚Д゚)[゚ε゚]+((゚ー゚) + (o^_^o))+
>> (o^_^o)+ (゚Д゚)[゚o゚]) (゚Θ゚)) ('_');
>>
>> ...just don't do it in a window you have useful things open in ^.^
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Julio Cesar Ody <julioody@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, really. I got the impression that so far, every question was
>>> just an illustration of how JS could work better.
>>>
>>> Which is, as Jared said, useful. Though focusing on that is dull, the
>>> way I see it. So sure, keep on, but useful tidbits are not only fun
>>> but also... useful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Cameron Barrie
>>> <camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
>>> >> it shouldn'
>>> > Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
>>> > In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The
>>> Good Parts.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://awesomebydesign.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> James
>

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Lachlan Hardy
Date:
2011-01-24 @ 01:02
As for different questions for the event: Craig would be overwhelmed
with joy if someone were to send him questions for the night :)

And as for dissecting cool examples of code, why not post something
here and see what others think? I think we've just proved that people
are actually paying attention to the list and willing to have a
discussion.

Post an explanation of a technique and see where it goes :)


(you all make me so very very happy - you mail list users, you)

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Julio Cesar Ody
Date:
2011-01-24 @ 01:03
So count me as having contributed already  :)   (see up in the thread)


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Lachlan Hardy
<lachlan@lachstock.com.au> wrote:
> As for different questions for the event: Craig would be overwhelmed
> with joy if someone were to send him questions for the night :)
>
> And as for dissecting cool examples of code, why not post something
> here and see what others think? I think we've just proved that people
> are actually paying attention to the list and willing to have a
> discussion.
>
> Post an explanation of a technique and see where it goes :)
>
>
> (you all make me so very very happy - you mail list users, you)
>



-- 
http://awesomebydesign.com

Re: [sydjs] F~~~ up

From:
Cameron Barrie
Date:
2011-01-23 @ 23:57
I agree we should have both.

I also think that Lachlan will be really happy with the use of the list 
and the online debate happening. :D


On 24/01/2011, at 10:54 AM, Julio Cesar Ody wrote:

> Yeah, really. I got the impression that so far, every question was
> just an illustration of how JS could work better.
> 
> Which is, as Jared said, useful. Though focusing on that is dull, the
> way I see it. So sure, keep on, but useful tidbits are not only fun
> but also... useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Cameron Barrie
> <camwritescode@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> still more useful than understanding why JS behaves weirdly when
>>> it shouldn'
>> Really? This is extremely useful IMO...
>> In saying that everyone should read Douglas Crockfords, Javascript The 
Good Parts.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://awesomebydesign.com