Why not make all functions async JS [closed] - javascript

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I understand async/await are really just promises but I'm curious if there's a reason not to make all functions async and await all value for consistency?
My Question
Is there any issues or implications to making all functions async? Are there any drawbacks?
This is for both Node.js and Client side systems (transpiled)

For many functions, you just want a result, and you want it now. Why would you go through all the extra overhead and complexity of async?
In other words, yes there are implications: there is almost certainly going to be a performance hit; partly because the code will be more complex.

Related

Auto correction is good or not? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm kind of confused that should I use an auto-correction when I am codding with Html, CSS, and JavaScript. Sometimes it is helpful but I feel I learn less??
Opposite, auto correction including function padding and etc is very helpful for people that are just learning language or framework and for people that are experienced. You waste too much time reading docs for each framework just to know which arguments some specific function takes when you can use an IDE and it will do all the work for you.

Why does JavaScript have the Math object? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In many languages, to find cosine, you use cos(x). But in JavaScript, you must use Math.cos(x). Why doesn't JavaScript spare us the 5 characters in Math., both making it easier to type and easier to read?
I have tried to Google this multiple times, and found no answers. Is there any practical reason for this that I have not yet found?
So far, there are three reasons I can think of:
The creators of JavaScript want to ensure that the math functions do not coincide with other functions users create (Like a function called 'cos()` that calculates, say, cosecant)
The creators of JavaScript thought that Math would make the code more readable
The creators of JavaScript perhaps didn't want any functions that have window as a parent (Though alert and prompt make this unlikely)
To hold the math functions without polluting the global namespace.

What are the advantages of using Inline Javascript? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that Inline Javascript hasn't got many benefits but I would still like to know a couple positives of embedding scripts in the HTML of web pages.Thanks!
It doesn't require an additional HTTP request. (Independent caching is usually more valuable though, and HTTP 2 / SPDY will render the cost of additional requests moot.)
It can been distributed as a single file in lieu of hosting on a real URL (but that's irrelevant on the WWW).

Is there an established norm in JavaScript that prototypes of built-ins should not be touched? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there an established norm in JavaScript that prototypes of built-ins should not be touched except in throw-away code?
No, there is no such established norm.
There are lots of people who think you shouldn't do that, with perfectly valid reasons for their opinion. Those people may wish such a norm existed, or believe firmly that it should. But this wish or belief on their part, no matter how fervent, should not be confused with the actual objective existence or non-existence of such a norm. To repeat, in answer to your specific question, no, there is no such established norm.

Best practice for including css and javascript files [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've always wondered about including javascript libraries and a mess of stylesheets in pages that don't ever use them. It got me wondering if maybe performance would improve, however slight, if I were to include these files on an as needed basis. Is there a best practice to go by on this? Some of these javascript libraries are very large and if they're not needed, it would seem to me that they shouldn't be included.
I'd like to hear the thoughts from others on this.
I think you are talking about Asynchronous Module Definitions (AMD).
One of the more popular implementations of this is Require.js. Check it out.

Categories

Resources