/tech/ - Technology★

Is this the power of Specdown?

<linking old news

Sad!

http://blog.npmjs.org/post/169582189317/incident-report-npm-inc-operations-incident-of

>>851295 (OP)

Not the first time this happened, there was a widescale issue due to the same reason (dev of a very popular package killed their repo because of drama or some shit, every site using the library, which was a lot of them, became outright unusable for a week or so).

Or is it the same one?

>>851321

That almost makes me want to become a nodejs developer just to make and subsequently memory-hole a highly depended package.

>>851329

this

>>851338

There is nothing wrong with node itself, you just have to stop being a fucking nigger and downloading libraries instead of writing code yourself.

>>851340

>There is nothing wrong with node itself

Except for the fact that it uses javascript

>>851338

Low barrier to entry, and thus you have low quality programmers.

>>851343

There's nothing wrong with javascript either. It's certainly better than trying to script in php.

>>851346

>`script´

What the hell do you mean by that you faggot?

If you want to `script´ then use perl or if you're gay, python.

>>851346

>eating vomit is better than eating shit

Is webdev still fairly lucrative? It seems that every other day I hear loads of shit about it, and most of it doesn't sound good.

>The OP for starters

>Someone shills a new framework or new library

<"React has saved me so much time and frustration, will change JS as we know it 10/10"

>Some retard complains about a library not doing something the way they want it, usually follows that up with shilling something else that "totally fixed everything" instead of actually writing their own code

>Articles upon articles in literally-who blogs that contain copypasted code that magically fix a problem without any explanation of how or why

To me the the webdev/JS landscape sounds like it's too convoluted and fucked to put any effort into.

>>851416

Did you know Facebook put a license clause on React that says they can remove your right to use the library if you criticise them?

>>851418

I didn't, but that doesn't really surprise me. I wish there was some kind of exploit that could be used to fuck over the modern web as we know it. Something really devious, something that would make people think twice about trusting every script that runs on their browser. If anything like that was found or is ever properly exploited, the framework of the nu-web would fucking implode. Wishful thinking, I guess.

>>851431

I bet normalfags would notice if bitcoin miners really took off.

>>851431

Slip in some code to a major library which randomly causes some words to turn into racial slurs.

>>851295 (OP)

Good.

Actually, it's time for an os to be built from the ground up in a single, simple and powerful language.

No systemd also.

>>851438

Most probably wouldn't at first. I'd imagine they'd just throw their phone or laptop in the garbage and buy a new one like they always do when their device starts to slow down. In the long run they'd notice, although I'd imagine that would lead to devs getting sneakier with their miners.

>>851441

Would be funny as hell, but not that practical or impactful in the long run.

>>851321

It's a new one, which makes the problem that much worse.

npm have been scolded for this before, you can delete your package and your package name becomes instantly available to be used, perfect for malware.

npm worked so that package must be the package right? Nope.

>>851445

Lua already exists.

>>851346

I use PHP at work and while it's a very quirky language, I still prefer working in it to Javascript.

>>851525

for fucks sake dude use the nsfw checkbox

>>851528

it is mostly fat I think.

but, I know some other women, which do have nice biceps.

>>851528

Get into martial arts, you might just start producing more testosterone.

>>851528

I'm sure the biceps is barely there, most of that is just fat tissue.

>>851464

I know you're just shitposting, but the first thing I noticed about Lua is how close it is to JavaScript, but less shit. If only they dropped variables being global by default and had 0-indexed lists it would great.

>>851565

Lua had no integer types until version 5.3, is that true?

(and js still doesn't have them?)

>>851418

i believe they removed that

If you're ever in the unfortunate position of having a node_modules directory, you should look in it for a good laugh. Just fucking look at this shit.

/*!
 * is-number <https://github.com/jonschlinkert/is-number>
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2014-2015, Jon Schlinkert.
 * Licensed under the MIT License.
 */

'use strict';

var typeOf = require('kind-of');

module.exports = function isNumber(num) {
  var type = typeOf(num);

  if (type === 'string') {
    if (!num.trim()) return false;
  } else if (type !== 'number') {
    return false;
  }

  return (num - num + 1) >= 0;
};

Somebody looked at this an thought this is a good idea to have as an dependency with a readme and a full copy of the mit licence.

Also in its dependency kind-of:

[...]
var type = typeof val;
  if (type === 'boolean') return 'boolean';
  if (type === 'string') return 'string';
  if (type === 'number') return 'number';
  if (type === 'symbol') return 'symbol';
  if (type === 'function') {
    return isGeneratorFn(val) ? 'generatorfunction' : 'function';
  }
[...]

Yes, kind-of just returns typeof for the types used! You can't make this shit up!

>>851338

It was the next trendy thing for a while.

>>851650

Lua still doesn't have integers, the deal with 5.3 is that the number type is represented as an integer sometimes behind the scenes for speed improvements.

Give lua a chance anon, you might find you like only having 9 or so types.

>>851671

>Lua still doesn't have integers

>Give lua a chance

No????????????

https://www.lua.org/pil/2.3.html

>The number type represents real (double-precision floating-point) numbers. Lua has no integer type, as it does not need it. There is a widespread misconception about floating-point arithmetic errors and some people fear that even a simple increment can go weird with floating-point numbers. The fact is that, when you use a double to represent an integer, there is no rounding error at all (unless the number is greater than 100,000,000,000,000). Specifically, a Lua number can represent any long integer without rounding problems. Moreover, most modern CPUs do floating-point arithmetic as fast as (or even faster than) integer arithmetic.

Wow this is top pajeet. Either go full high level and provide big integers like python or provide fixed width integers. Everything else is just retarded.

>>851665

also this: number-is-nan

'use strict';
module.exports = Number.isNaN || function (x) {
	return x !== x;
};

With full copy of the MIT licence, package.json and reame, of course.

>>851677

Other full modules include:

/*!
 * is-odd <https://github.com/jonschlinkert/is-odd>
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2015-2017, Jon Schlinkert.
 * Released under the MIT License.
 */

'use strict';

var isNumber = require('is-number');

module.exports = function isOdd(i) {
  if (!isNumber(i)) {
    throw new TypeError('is-odd expects a number.');
  }
  if (Number(i) !== Math.floor(i)) {
    throw new RangeError('is-odd expects an integer.');
  }
  return !!(~~i & 1);
};

var toString = {}.toString;

module.exports = Array.isArray || function (arr) {
  return toString.call(arr) == '[object Array]';
};

'use strict';
module.exports = function (x) {
	var type = typeof x;
	return x !== null && (type === 'object' || type === 'function');
};

>>851671

>you might find you like only having 9 or so types

nope, that sucks

language without integer type cannot be taken seriously

>>851692

then explain how

function (x) {return x !== x;}

>>851698

NaN != NaN

>>851700

that only works if the variable is literally NaN, if its a string and jou want to check if its numeric it wil

behave differently as Number.isNaN.

>>851703

nevermind I'm an idiot who thought isNaN would check if it is numeric or not

>>851706

>>851707

>NaN is a type

>method checks if something is NaN or not

>get buttflustered when it tells you that a string is not NaN

There are a lot of things wrong with javascript, but isNaN is not one of those things.

[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]((![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+[+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]])()

>>851525

>>851699

>those asymmetrical child rape eyes

Every time.

>>851295 (OP)

>javascript on suicide watch

>not about jailbreaking an apple watch and using nodejs to read its heartrate monitor

fucking dropped

>>851699

>>851525

Absolutely disgusting.

>>851699

who the fuck is it?

>>851499

if (variable.hasOwnProperty('property') && variable.property.hasOwnProperty('property2) && etc, etc)

Me too, mainly for this reason.

if (isset(variable['property']['property1']) ...

>>852081

I like lodash for shit like this.

if (_.get(variable, ['property1', 'property2']))

>>852084

Yeah, i use lodash for this usually too. But, for work, we have a bulk import system where we need to write data transformation scripts and lodash isn't included with it.

So at first I was, painstakingly, doing that shit manually.

Now I just paste the following snippet in:

      fromDotNotation: function(obj, path) {
        var i = 0,
        path = path.split('.');

        for (; i < path.length; i++) {
            if (typeof obj[path[i]] === 'undefined' || !obj[path[i]]) {
              return ''; 
            }
            
            obj = obj[path[i]];
        }

        return obj;
      },

>IPFS devs warned people before padding debacle

>nobody listened

>it happened

>now it's happening again

most jej

>>852087

>still using var

ES6 const and let nigga. Also this is slightly faster for loop expression checking

for (let i = 0, il = path.length; i < il; i += 1) { }

>>851329

This is quite possibly the most useful thing we can do to improve the health of the internet.

And I like it, because this tactic has a proven track record. Infiltrating and attacking from within is quite effective, historically celebrated, and very difficult to defend against, especially when it comes from many different vectors.

We could fix javascript. By fix I of course mean destroy and purge all record of it's existence as punishment, while erecting a 50ft granite statue at the center of the world's largest landfill shaming the creators.

>>852331

Without Javascript they'll just use some other cancer to fuck with your internet experience. The language isn't the cause of your suffering.

>>851834

Yeah, but it is still confusing to look at. Old Man Crockford is right when he says that, when writing code, you should avoid confusion above everything else (sans the code working properly, of course).

Anybody knows if this account is the real thing?

https://mobile.twitter.com/izs/status/911105515798720513

>>851321

This is why shit should be cloned and served locally.

>but anon, if google goes down not being able to get the fonts for your css will be the least of your problems

NO, FUCK YOU

>>851329

I highly doubt that it will work second time. After left-pad fiasco npm changed rules for removing package (now you can't if someone depends on you). And with their security tools (there was a minor fuckup caused by them recently) you probably will not be able to change it to something malicious.

>>856682

It is.

>>851445

Rust.

</thread>

>>851834

What does this code do? I'm not pasting it anywhere fuck no.

>>856694

Paste it in Ideone, idiot.

>>856693

https://www.redox-os.org/

>>856694

It's the stock example from jsfuck.

false       =>  ![]
true        =>  !![]
undefined   =>  [][[]]
NaN         =>  +[![]]
0           =>  +[]
1           =>  +!+[]
2           =>  !+[]+!+[]
10          =>  [+!+[]]+[+[]]
Array       =>  []
Number      =>  +[]
String      =>  []+[]
Boolean     =>  ![]
Function    =>  []["filter"]
eval        =>  []["filter"]["constructor"]( CODE )()
window      =>  []["filter"]["constructor"]("return this")()