| /* bling.js */ | |
| window.$ = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document); | |
| Node.prototype.on = window.on = function (name, fn) { | |
| this.addEventListener(name, fn); | |
| }; | |
| NodeList.prototype.__proto__ = Array.prototype; |
I've heard this before:
What I really get frustrated by is that I cannot wrap
console.*and preserve line numbers
We enabled this in Chrome DevTools via blackboxing a bit ago.
If you blackbox the script file the contains the console log wrapper, the script location shown in the console will be corrected to the original source file and line number. Click, and the full source is looking longingly into your eyes.
Native HTML controls are a challenge to style. You can style any element in the web platform that uses Shadow DOM with a pseudo element ::pseudo-element or the /deep/ path selector.
video::webkit-media-controls-timeline {
background-color: lime;
}
video /deep/ input[type=range] {
I'm having trouble understanding the benefit of require.js. Can you help me out? I imagine other developers have a similar interest.
From Require.js - Why AMD:
The AMD format comes from wanting a module format that was better than today's "write a bunch of script tags with implicit dependencies that you have to manually order"
I don't quite understand why this methodology is so bad. The difficult part is that you have to manually order dependencies. But the benefit is that you don't have an additional layer of abstraction.
| define('backbone', ['lib-underscore', 'lib-backbone'], function () { | |
| Backbone.mixin = function (view, mixin, custom) { | |
| if (custom) { | |
| if (custom.events && mixin.events) { | |
| mixin = _.clone(mixin) | |
| _.defaults(custom.events, mixin.events) | |
| } | |
| _.extend(mixin, custom) | |
| } | |
| var source = view.prototype || view |