active on Stack Overflow

render

GDC 2012: From Console to Chrome

what not to ask?

This quick demo shows just a few of the CSS3 properties PIE can render. Use the controls to adjust the CSS3 applied to the box. Load this page in IE to see that it is rendered properly!

3 Answersactiveoldestvotes
up vote
55
down vote
accepted
It doesn't work because it is being parsed as a FunctionDeclaration, and the name identifier of function declarations is a mandatory.

When you surround it with parentheses it is evaluated as a FunctionExpression, and function expressions can be named or not.

ostic of the environment (DOM, browser, etc). For my purposes, I would have probably written a url redirector function that i pass both the URL to *and* the controller to do it on (in this case, the window.location object). As such, instead of relying on the single "singleton" global (window.location), my unit tests can pass in a mocked window.location object and assert that it's manipulated correctly.

The only thing I'd really take issue with is the idea of not creating private methods in closures. I understand the thought behind it, but I think it's off base, and here's why:

If I'm unit testing a built-in native (I know, why do that!?), I don't care how it works internally... I assume it works internally as expected. I write tests to test it as a single indivisable unit. In other words, does a RegExp object with a known regex and a known string produce a known output. If the browser changes how it does that internally, I don't care.

I like to think of testing modules that way too. I can test the public API of a module all day long, but asking me to be able to expose all my internal-only methods for testing is a request that seems unruly. Imagine some other language like Java that was more formal... would the advice there be "make everything public so it's all testable"? I doubt it.

The formalism of hiding private stuff can be abused, but properly used it has a good place in JS in my opinion. We shouldn't discourage its use by saying it's untestable. We should show ways that privates can be useful (and the public API that uses them still feasibly testable) and contrast that wi

anvas before and had to start from scratch. I went through the pain of learning every aspect of adding text, drawing shapes, importing image, etc... before I found the amazing canvas framework Processing.JS

For those who don't quite fully grasp what HTML5 Canvas check out the W3Schools entry for the element before reading any further, but it's basically an element that defines graphics.

self.addEventListener('message', function(e) {
self.postMessage(e.data);
}, false);

els, views (for view controllers and templates), and controllers (for application-level controllers). Those directories — especially the views directory — may contain subdirectories, for instance if there’s more than one view for a certain type of data

UI Driven development has the nice advantage to not let you develop unuseful resources but it does not let you think as good as possible the way to develop your backend. So you will probably need some refactoring. Fortunately, with your tests refactoring will be easier and safer. Moreover patterns you see when you develop UI first push you to think about refactoring that match better to your needs.

Additionally while running the app in Blend I noticed that there was no JavaScript console there.  Let’s hope one is added before Blend 5 ships, as that will make debugging across the tools simpler.