JavaScript for Impatient Devs

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 21

  • @ts8960
    @ts8960 8 месяцев назад +5

    thx i needed a recap of javascript after taking a year break from work, this vid came in clutch

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  8 месяцев назад +1

      Awesome! Best of luck with your return to the job :)

  • @steadyfall
    @steadyfall 10 месяцев назад +4

    as someone who hates js, this video made me understand js better than any video out there. ❤

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      Thank you! And yeah, I recommend TS if you need either

  • @GoldenBeholden
    @GoldenBeholden 10 месяцев назад +2

    This is a nice introduction and refresher for modern JavaScript; I actually thought undefined?.property was not a native JavaScript operation, but it turns out I just never used it before moving to TypeScript. One note about named anonymous functions: they do have completely pragmatic uses due to their more sensible implementation of the `this` keyword, similar to how `let` and `const` are more sensible implementations of `var`.

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      Interesting! Could you explain the difference in the `this` keyword implementation? Ideally with an example

    • @GoldenBeholden
      @GoldenBeholden 10 месяцев назад +1

      @@IsaacHarrisHolt In an arrow notation function, `this` is staticly assigned during definition. You can test this by moving the definition to a different scope.
      Traditional functions - which can also be anonymous, hence my usage of "arrow notation", breaking from the nomenclature of your video - dynamically assign a value to `this` based on how the function is called. In most cases, this will be the object calling the function, but it can also be the element to which it is attached or the corresponding instance when used as a method (which may still be "the object calling the function" under the hood; I'm not sure how that's implemented).
      Both have their uses, but you will run into seemingly impossible bugs if you don't know it's more than just a shortened syntax.
      While I think it goes beyond the scope of an overview such as this, JavaScript as a language may seem nonsensical without historical context - new versions are not allowed to break compatibility with older websites, which is how you get triple vs double equals, template literals, var vs let (to do away with hoisting), and eventually type hints in comments.

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      Interesting, that's good to know. Thanks!

  • @avgvstvs96
    @avgvstvs96 7 месяцев назад +2

    These videos are so good, please never stop!

  • @bawbbie7875
    @bawbbie7875 10 месяцев назад +2

    Subscribed. Great stuff, looking to see more

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      Thanks! Let me know what you'd like to see next :)

  • @spaceplex5079
    @spaceplex5079 10 месяцев назад +2

    i was 7 hours into a 12 hour JS video before this was uploaded, crazy

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      And was it as good 👀

    • @spaceplex5079
      @spaceplex5079 10 месяцев назад +1

      @@IsaacHarrisHolt so far yeah, just 2x on stuff that's familiar

  • @pdcx
    @pdcx 10 месяцев назад +1

    should also mention tc39 and ecmascript's evolution each year to add some new stuffs...

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад

      Good point! It can get a bit much, sometimes 😅

  • @Mistoffeleess
    @Mistoffeleess 4 месяца назад

    It's irony that JS is getting similar to Java and vise versa.

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  4 месяца назад

      Yeah it's definitely interesting. Hopefully it'll get the good bits of Java and not the bad ones

  • @FirroLP
    @FirroLP 10 месяцев назад

    nvm is trash, n is way better

    • @IsaacHarrisHolt
      @IsaacHarrisHolt  10 месяцев назад +1

      Not heard of it! Can you tell me why it's better?