Alex Sexton

This approach to discussing inheritance treats JavaScript as if you're a Java or C++ programmer, and completely lacks any clarity with how inheritance in JavaScript really works. Best intro I've read on the topic I'm talking about is from Alex Sexton (just read the last example, it really hits the nail on the head): https://alexsexton.com/blog/2013/04/understanding-javascript-inheritan… So you might want a wee bit of hierarchy, if you're thinking like those "shared options" scenario, but not in the "OO type abstraction tree". So, you might have something like a "Account.prototype.primeInterestRate" property that you can change in a running program, and then all the other types of account can calculate interest based on that shared property. However, the more experienced jS developers I've met might take those "Account.prototype.balance" and "Account.prototype.deposit" methods, and push those into a "mixin" type (like "CurrentBalance") where those methods are copied (not inherited) onto the child class prototype, and those methods, might have initializer helpers to set up the "currentBalance" property they use. This mixin approach only gets gnarly if there's any feature envy. (Document your object properties clearly, folks. This is where javaScript's flexibility often becomes a crutch - lots of issues happen if mixin code uses "this.foo" for different things.) Anyhow, what's interesting here is that Account carries the property that's shared, but CurrentBalance…

I think this post is neither trolling nor calling on people to blindly switch to Dojo. It is pointing out a thing I see over and over and over again: people choosing jQuery for tasks to which it is simply not suited. Yes, if you know what you're doing you can make it work -- Alex Sexton makes this argument quite well in his post "On 'Rolling Your Own' Large jQuery Apps" (http://alexsexton.com/?p=106). This post asks developers who blindly choose jQuery, based on its popularity and an often-misguided sense of self-assuredness, a straightforward question: "Tell me how, exactly, you plan to solve these problems you haven't even thought about yet? If you proceed blindly with jQuery, then by the time you think about them, you will be effed. So, maybe you ought to ponder, for a solitary moment, that there might be things you haven't thought about yet, and consider a toolkit that's thought about JavaScript app development questions for years, rather than a library whose competencies are still and painfully limited to DOM, Ajax, events and effects." I applaud the people who answer this question competently with jQuery as a base. What I take issue with is the people who aren't willing to consider for a second that, for all its popularity and simplicity, jQuery might not be the right tool for every JavaScript job under the sun.

AKA The Monty Hall Rewrite https://alexsexton.com/blog/2014/11/the-monty-hall-rewrite

You can do cross-domain POSTs. You just cannot get a response from the server. Often times though you can get the length of the response. This can be used to do a POST to change settings on an unsecured Wi-Fi routers, for example and checking whether the call succeeded or not by the length of the response. The method described in the SO answer is similar, from what I can tell, to what DISQUS uses. I believe they call it JSONPI: http://alexsexton.com/thirdparty/#forms-are-cool-too

Here's an ugly GUI for Uglify: http://alexsexton.com/uglifui/

Here's a useful comparative demo that makes this a little easier to differentiate: http://alexsexton.com/inheritance/demo/