eueueu

Is Reddit still run to be profitable? It always seems like it fits more with a wikipedia type model of donations etc.

Sure, the law is ridiculous though. It'd be like trying to make it illegal for a shop assistant to remember you shopped there last thursday.

It's completely unenforceable.

8 years isn't the long term. Sorry if this wasn't obvious.

It's pretty easy for the very small minority of people who don't want cookies to disable them in their browser.

Also it's pretty easy for any website that wants to track you, to track you using something other than cookies.

If you are in the UK, please vote to withdraw from the EU. This sort of meddling into every minute detail of our lives is only going to get worse. (See also banning vacuum cleaners and light bulbs). Also checkout cars that aren't powerful enough to go up hills due to trying to meet EU emission laws.

Property will always increase over the long term. Unless you're moving every 6 months this isn't a good reason.

Of course selling your house and buying a new one will take a few months, so it does restrict your mobility in that way.

Think about what would happen if you typo a single character in each example.

If you miswrite "function" as "fnuction", you'll easily, quickly find out.

If you miswrite => as >= it might take ages to track it down.

  a=>b<=7
  a>=b<=7

Can you not see the typos possible with this? The less characters you use for something, the more error prone. There's a reason we don't write in regular expression syntax.

Maybe I'm just getting old!

If you're writing a few thousand functions, you're doing something very wrong.

It's like when languages make threads easy to create - and then programmers go away and use threads for everything!

Maybe some verbosity is a good thing because it makes programmers think about whether they really want to do something a few thousand times.

shrug it's still just code. It still does exactly the same thing as previous javascript code. Syntax changes are pretty boring IMHO, and as I said personally, I find this one much harder to read, more prone to errors, typos and confusion.

So basically, a useless hipster fashion lead fluffy syntax change, which mainly makes code harder to read, and makes typos more common.

  // foo takes a function, and a boolean.
  // foo(a=>7, a>=2);

Really? That's easy to read is it? Eugh count me out.

I don't think you quite understand.

With a conventional taxi company, if something bad happens, you deal with the taxi company, get compensation, etc etc

With Uber, they wash their hands of it and say it's all the individual drivers fault. So now the drivers have to deal with any bad stuff, and their insurance companies as well.

This is Uber, pushing the risk onto drivers, so it can make more money.

Well clearly "function" is "better", because it's less prone to typos, easier to read, and makes more sense. But if you can make a good argument to go with "functioooooooooooooooooooooooooooon" then go for it.

This isn't the core language changing though. This is people who are new to javascript coming to it and deciding they all must write their "hello world" framework / extension.

Most of it is just superfluous fluff that doesn't actually do anything but change the syntax to something they perceive as fundamentally better, when it's just a matter of taste and fashion.

Isn't everything available on youtube for free these days? Or radio etc. I can't imagine paying for music. Unless it's an extremely rare CD I can't find anywhere else.

don't forget these startup guys are literally saving the world one webapp at a time. It's serious stuff.

Because once you introduce threads, your program complexity increases massively. You're now throwing a few groups of instructions at the CPU and saying "Hay! Execute these instructions in any order you like". Then you're adding code to deal with the issues of that random execution entails.

Also, it's not faster, so what's the actual point?

The browser should use all CPU cores efficiently to make javascript fast. Exposing WebWorkers to javascript programmers IMHO is totally the wrong way to do that.

Javascript is not an operating system.

There aren't many operations in javascript which will block. The only real issue is that your javascript code executes in the same thread as UI. Which just means you need to think a bit harder about keeping it responsive.

"Start threads!" in programming is usually a lazy hack.

I'd bet using setTimeout with a 0ms delay every loop wouldn't slow the example down significantly, and would have the desired effect of making the UI responsive.

Yes it does. I'm not convinced multithreading is something that should be encouraged within javascript personally.

It's trivial to periodically pass control back to the UI with setTimeout or setInterval.

So doing something that takes 8s doesn't have to block the UI at all. The "without webworkers" version should be renamed to "Naively programmed version" or something.

how much do they pay WhatsApp each month?

It gets even worse if you look at colour trademarking. eg Cadbury "own" the colour purple when it comes to chocolate. Orange also have a trademark on using the colour orange when operating a mobile phone business and had a spat with Easy about it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3555398.stm