Satmary: Profsimm: what is that even?

Hanline: I never talked about culture, practices, or anything like that

Pozos: I was talking strictly about the semantics of the language

Tosten: Dekok: getters and setters always existed in browser objects. they simply weren’t user accessible.

Weltch: Profsimm: they did not.

Ferrando: Profsimm: not semantically.

Speas: Dekok: really. What happens when you ***ign value to do***ent.location

Brookfield: Good, now users have access to magic.

Creasy: Profsimm: if it isn’t specified, it’s not JS. It simply doesn’t exist, and can do anything.

Wolfred: Profsimm: no, it’s not the same thing.

Guittennez: It’s close enough to my liking.

Schiffmann: I’m using get/set because it makes my APIs simple to use.

Rattner: Though ES2015 now differentiates between “Exotic Objects,” which are host-provided objects, and JS objects, which it calls “Ordinary Objects”. Unlike anything from ES5 and below, Exotic Objects are now specified

Gershkovich: Simple isn’t easy profsimm

Dahlheimer: Anyone can help me find the error in this? Something is not working :S http://jsfiddle.net/5r1bq0y4/

Gershkovich: Watch some rich hickey

Ashly: Profsimm: I don’t really care why you think you should use them. And I’m certainly not criticising your choice of using them

Calisto: Gershkovich: he’s in favor of simple, so bad call there

Waegner: Or any property of an array object that is the default string representation of a positive possible 32-bit two’s complement integer.

Hittle: Gershkovich: are you googlin’ his talk to confirm ;

Sakakeeny: Gershkovich: just kiddin’

Stuchlik: Has everyone else got this Wat thing in their discussion ?

Stuchlik: Oh, it’s just vanished nvm

Gershkovich: Try being less combative then profsimm

Dreka: Gershkovich: I’m combative because I corrected you or. why

Stuchlik: Dekok: sorry – there was a Image with Wat right in the middle , think ERC was just displaying things a bit funny / it was an old link that was lingering, no worries

Gershkovich: Profsimm: just going by the scrollback i see

Wiginton: Gershkovich: ok whatever

Sunseri: Baxx: Maybe your Emacs has a conscience now, and it’s talking to you 😛

Stuchlik: It’d be saying more than Wat

Stuchlik: Emacs doctor always ends with ‘maybe it’s because of your life’ or something ha, **** that thing

Durnin: Https://gist.github.com/Reddekopp/b44c9f967d9e10ff7135

Verderosa: Why use control structures when you can do it all with basic string concatenation?

Criado: How does that even work?

Stoval: I wrote it initially for the C preprocessor.

Manly: Not remembering is probably for the best 😛

Elazegui: Haters guna hate ᕕ ᐛ ᕗ

Carmer: Does ES5 have something that locks the methods on an object to their “this”

Wakley: Havvy: Function.prototype.bind – JavaScript MDN https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/bind

Valasco: Well, I mean automatically, for the entire object.

Dais: Object.keysobj.mapfunction key { var val = objval; return {key: key, val: val}; }.filterfunction kv { return typeof kv.val === “function”; }.forEachfunction kv { objkv.key = kv.val.bindobj; };

Kriete: Profsimm: that would defeat the whole purpose of this. But you can always just wrap the functions

Slye: Do note that it’s impossible to extend the object once you do that, since, well, this won’t be dynamic anymore.

Sleppy: Havvy: thanks I was hoping for a built-in solution for performance reasons

Hazen: Dekok: this is something to do after instantiation. Extending an instantiated object would be confusing to say the least.