Literphor_: it’s common.

Sarao: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Numkena: You shouldn’t be doing type tests in JS anyway. Or in any OO language. It’s anti-OO.

Reineck: Thankfully you don’t usually need to do checks on type like that

Gentleman: Heroman: that’s not actually true.

Varin: Not strictly true, Gentleman. Just generally. 😛

Burgeson: It’s not true for true Arrays, for instance.

Gentleman: Heroman: that’s never actually true for builtins.

Dinovi: And unlike functions and Arrays, JS doesn’t even have special behaviours for regular expressions.

Gentleman: STRML: as i said. my “is-foo” modules are the only examples i know of that are reliably branding checks for things in ES6.

Sellberg: For functions you can use typeof. For arrays you can use Array.isArray. For anything else, it doesn’t really make sense to care about things

Gentleman: Hylle: every builtin has internal slots

Gentleman: Oh, i see what you mean

Gentleman: But yeah there are methods that will throw unless you give them a regex

Gentleman: So you need to know if it’s actually a regex

Aldama: Gentleman: which eases your work, since the only thing you can do after “type checking” is throwing a TypeError anyway 😀

Messan: Gentleman is the resident guardian of JavaScript’s prescribed shoulds and should-nots. :3 He’s the go-to for asking questions about what is considered appropriate or not.

Reineck: And I’m the go-to for complaints on when people explain things using obscure academic lingo instead of what people understand

Stittgen: Not the same as cans and can-nots or wills or will-nots.

Studmire: But academic lingo is cute :

Broussard: I think I’ll cuten my typeface even more. :3 One-stroke “n”, two-stroke “m”, one-stroke “b”, one-stroke “d”, one-stroke “p”, one-stroke “q”.

Tordsen: If vertical space weren’t such a concern, I’d dot “i” with a circle.

Reineck: Why don’t you dot it with a heart

Peloquin: Pixel font. Not enough resolution.

Kaller: And sometimes I make typefaces intended for editing source code.

Reho: Zomg:×15.png

Wolverton: It’s sans-serif gothic, with a few select flourishes.

Baudino: Zomg, what do you think?

Kahoun: The font, not the code example.

Reineck: Is it the same as last time?

Reineck: The png seems to give an error 500

Marlene: Does anyone have an article that explains why using nested cl***es can be a bad decision?

Geyette: Zomg: Dropbox seems to be down at the moment. :

Babilon: Anyway, zomg, were you the one who commented that my fonts looked scrunched?

Bosefski: This design is more recent – it’s slightly larger.

Rivara: Well not cl***es with javascript…but declaring huge nested javascirpt objects in a single file

Eppley: And tries not to be scrunched.

Reineck: Heroman: yeah that was probably me

Oberdorf: This design is the same, but slightly larger now.

Reineck: But yeah the image doesn’t open for me

Banchero: For me, neither using Dropbox’s online interface.

Zuckerman: Must be a server issue.

Malphurs: Try again a little later.

Kuka: Hmm, weirdly I got a thumbnail but I can’t click the image.

Gentleman: Literphor_: “huge” and “nested” is usually a bad idea.

Gentleman: Literphor_: small and separated is much better.

Balistreri: Gentleman: I agree, I need an article that helps describe the reasons why it’s bad, if you have one available

Gentleman: Literphor_: it’s common sense imo? larger means more to think about, more that can break when you make a change, more you have to understand when debugging or refactoring or fixing things