Jeffress: Google bought them but i doubt the code has been thrown out

Gershkovich: Buu: do we count clojure as a lisp

Jeffress: Anyway, lisp is great as a teaching tool and it definitely advanced the state of the art

Linzie: We don’t count those. as anything.

Jeffress: Clojure and racket both have some good ideas

Fumagalli: Occasionally, macros might be just what you need.

Linzie: Also I’m unconvinced clojure actually exists

Trucchi: Livescript: for i in arr then func i

Gershkovich: Buu: you mustn’t have been here for the previous conversation where we discussed how walmart is dropping most of their node.js stuff for it :v

Fumagalli: Livescript’s is the same as coffeescript’s. i prefer it like that. confusing when they turn it backwards!

Linzie: Gershkovich: All 1500 lines of node code?!

Fumagalli: I know a guy who does clojure. he is rich. he doesn’t come in here to talk to us though

Gershkovich: Buu: they’re also moving away from other languages, not just node :v

Fumagalli: Macros can also make incomprehensible code. but it’s up to the developer to balance power with readability

Linzie: With great power comes high utility bills

Jeffress: Fumagalli: it’s also up to the language designer to decide what values should be emphasised

Trucchi: I like macros, but if they’re built into a language they can be abused and then you find syntax dropping out from under you, heh

Jeffress: If you’re building a language that aims to be good for writing secure code, leaving out macros is probably a good choice

Trucchi: Good for creating DSL’s though

Jeffress: Trucchi: eh, i’m not convinced

Jeffress: If you have template strings, building DSLs isn’t that hard

Scorzelli: Var str=”‘a’,’b’,’c'”; typeofstr; str;

Wakley: Drewery: string “‘a’,’b’,’c'”

Plotts: How can I evaluate this as an array ?

Delcine: I need a javascript generator

Gibeau: Where the “yield” is called in a subfunction that’s not a generator itsself

Letran: I tried it with the latest node –harmony, but it seems this feature isn’t possible

Wolaver: I want the control-flow of a function including its subfunctions to be stopped with yield and then controlled from the scope that creates the generator

Jeffress: Dadada: this is not how generators work, you’re correct

Jeffress: Why do you want this?

Jeffress: Sounds like the quick route to confusing code

Gulledge: Because it gives me control over the flow of code from outside

Geck: Var str=”‘a’,’b’,’c'”; str=str.split”,”; typeofstr;

Wakley: Drewery: string ‘object’

Jeffress: Dadada: yes why do you want that :

Yoquelet: Dash: not really, it would be quite readable for what I intend, I have the problem that javascript is asynchronous and I’m writing a web browser UI that has to communicate with the engine, so to post a message to the engine receiving from is already solved syncronously I need to stop the control flow, then inject some code, then start the control flow

Wallau: Dash: I’m implementing the chrome.* API and there are unfortunately a couple of syncronous functions in there

Sabi: Dash: i.e. the UI code can tell the UI that a certain chrome.* function was called with parameters

Luka: Dash: but when a immediate result is required, there is no way to inject it back

Strelow: Dash: callbacks are not a problem on the other hand

Anzualda: I’m trying to determine if a property exists with ifmyvar.prop and i’m getting a type error Cannot read property ‘prop’ of undefined

Jeffress: Generators would not help with that anyway

Linzie: Instance: try making sure myvar is defined

Kappen: But the point of the if is to see if it’s defined