Develop Reference

What is the default “tag” function for template literals?

What is the name of the native function that handles template literals?
That is, I know that when you write tag`Foo ${'bar'}.`;, that’s just syntactic sugar for tag(['Foo ', '.'], 'bar');.¹
But what about just ​`Foo ${'bar'}.`;? I can’t just “call” (['Foo ', '.'], 'bar');. If I already have arguments in that form, what function should I pass them to?
I am only interested in the native function that implements the template literal functionality. I am quite capable of rolling my own, but the purpose of this question is to avoid that and do it “properly”—even if my implementation is a perfect match of current native functionality, the native functionality can change and I want my usage to still match. So answers to this question should take on one of the following forms:
The name of the native function to use, ideally with links to and/or quotes from documentation of it.
Links to and/or quotes from the spec that defines precisely what the implementation of this function is, so that if I roll my own at least I can be sure it’s up to the (current) specifications.
A backed-up statement that the native implementation is unavailable and unspecified. Ideally this is backed up by, again, links to and/or quotes from documentation, but if that’s unavailable, I’ll accept other sources or argumentation that backs this claim up.
Actually, the first argument needs a raw property, since it’s a TemplateStringsArray rather than a regular array, but I’m skipping that here for the sake of making the example more readable.
Motivation
I am trying to create a tag function (tag, say) that, internally, performs the default template literal concatenation on the input. That is, I am taking the TemplateStringsArray and the remaining arguments, and turning them into a single string that has already had its templating sorted out. (This is for passing the result into another tag function, otherTag perhaps, where I want the second function to treat everything as a single string literal rather than a broken up template.)
For example, tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`; would be equivalent to otherTag`Something cooked.`;.
My current approach
The definition of tag would look something like this:
function tag(textParts, ...expressions) {
const cooked = // an array with a single string value
const raw = // an array with a single string value
return otherTag({ ...cooked, raw });
}
Defining the value of raw is fairly straightforward: I know that String.raw is the tag function I need to call here, so const raw = [String.raw(textParts.raw, ...expressions)];.
But I cannot find anywhere on the internet what function I would call for the cooked part of it. What I want is, if I have tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`;, I want const cooked = `Something ${cooked}.`; in my function. But I can’t find the name of whatever function accomplishes that.
The closest I’ve found was a claim that it could be implemented as
const cooked = [expressions.map((exp, i) => textParts[i] + exp).join('')];
This is wrong—textParts may be longer than expressions, since tag`Something ${'cooked'}.`; gets ['Something ', '.'] and ['cooked'] as its arguments.
Improving this expression to handle that isn’t a problem:
const cooked = [
textParts
.map((text, i) => (i > 0 ? expressions[i-1] : '') + text)
.join(''),
];
But that’s not the point—I don’t want to roll my own here and risk it being inconsistent with the native implementation, particularly if that changes.

The name of the native function to use, ideally with links to and/or quotes from documentation of it.
There isn't one. It is syntax, not a function.
Links to and/or quotes from the spec that defines precisely what the implementation of this function is, so that if I roll my own at least I can be sure it’s up to the (current) specifications.
Section 13.2.8 Template Literals of the specification explains how to process the syntax.

Sorting Special Characters in Javascript (Æ)

I'm trying to sort an array of objects based on the objects' name property. Some of the names start with 'Æ', and I'd like for them to be sorted as though they were 'Ae'. My current solution is the following:
myArray.sort(function(a, b) {
var aName = a.name.replace(/Æ/gi, 'Ae'),
bName = b.name.replace(/Æ/gi, 'Ae');
return aName.localeCompare(bName);
});
I feel like there should be a better way of handling this without having to manually replace each and every special character. Is this possible?
I'm doing this in Node.js if it makes any difference.

There is no simpler way. Unfortunately, even the way described in the question is too simple, at least if portability is of any concern.
The localeCompare method is by definition implementation-dependent, and it usually depends on the UI language of the underlying operating system, though it may also differ between browsers (or other JavaScript implementations) in the same computer. It can be hard to find any documentation on it, so even if you aim at writing non-portable code, you might need to do a lot of testing to see which collation order is applied. Cf. to Sorting strings is much harder than you thought!
So to have a controlled and portable comparison, you need to code it yourself, unless you are lucky enough to find someone else’s code that happens to suit your needs. On the positive side, the case conversion methods are one of the few parts of JavaScript that are localization-ready: they apply Unicode case mapping rules, so e.g. 'æ'.toUpperCase() yields Æ in any implementation.
In general, sorting strings requires a complicated function that applies specific sorting rules as defined for a language or by some other rules, such as the Pan-European sorting rules (intended for multilingual content). But if we can limit ourselves to sorting rules that deal with just a handful of letters in addition to Ascii, we can use code like the following simplified sorting for German (extract from by book Going Global with JavaScript and Globalize.js):
String.prototype.removeUmlauts = function () {
return this.replace(/Ä/g,'A').replace(/Ö/g,'O').replace(/Ü/g,'U');
};
function alphabetic(str1, str2) {
var a = str1.toUpperCase().removeUmlauts();
var b = str2.toUpperCase().removeUmlauts();
return a < b ? -1 : a > b ? 1 : 0;
}
You could adds other mappings, like replace(/Æ/gi, 'Ae'), to this, after analyzing the characters that may appear and deciding how to deal with them. Removing diacritic marks (e.g. mapping É to E) is simplistic but often good enough, and surely better than leaving it to implementations to decide whether É is somewhere after Z. And at least you would get consistent results across implementations, and you would see what things go wrong and need fixing, instead of waiting for other users complain that your code sorts all wrong (in their environment).

I need a Javascript literal syntax converter/deobfuscation tools

I have searched Google for a converter but I did not find anything. Is there any tools available or I must make one to decode my obfuscated JavaScript code ?
I presume there is such a tool but I'm not searching Google with the right keywords.
The code is 3 pages long, this is why I need a tools.
Here is an exemple of the code :
<script>([][(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]]()[(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+(+[])+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]])(([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+
Thank you

This code is fascinating because it seems to use only nine characters ("[]()!+,;" and empty space U+0020) yet has some sophisticated functionality. It appears to use JavaScript's implicit type conversion to coerce arrays into various primitive types and their string representations and then use the characters from those strings to compose other strings which type out the names of functions which are then called.
Consider the following snippet which evaluates to the array filter function:
([][
(![]+[])[+[]] // => "f"
+ ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]] // => "i"
+ (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]] // => "l"
+ (!![]+[])[+[]] // => "t"
+ (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]] // => "e"
+ (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // => "r"
]) // => function filter() { /* native code */ }
Reconstructing the code as such is time consuming and error prone, so an automated solution is obviously desirable. However, the behavior of this code is so tightly bound to the JavaScript runtime that de-obsfucating it seems to require a JS interpreter to evaluate the code.
I haven't been able to find any tools that will work generally with this sort of encoding. It seems as though you'll have to study the code further and determine any patterns of usage (e.g. reliance on array methods) and figure out how to capture their usage (e.g. by wrapping high-level functions [such as Function.prototype.call]) to trace the code execution for you.

This question has already an accepted answer, but I will still post to clear some things up.
When this idea come up, some guy made a generator to encode JavaScript in this way. It is based on doing []["sort"]["call"]()["eval"](/* big blob of code here */). Therefore, you can decode the results of this encoder easily by removing the sort-call-eval part (i.e. the first 1628 bytes). In this case it produces:
if (document.cookie=="6ffe613e2919f074e477a0a80f95d6a1"){ alert("bravo"); }
else{ document.location="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0"; }
(Funny enough the creator of this code was not even able to compress it properly and save a kilobyte)
There is also an explanation of why this code doesn't work in newer browser anymore: They changed Array.prototype.sort so it does not return a reference to window. As far as I remember, this was the only way to get a reference to window, so this code is kind of broken now.

How to convert a string equation to a numeric value with Javascript

Basically, I have a user input field where a user can enter a number. They would like to also be able to enter equations in the input field as well.
Something like "874.45 * 0.825 + 4000" and have that converted to its real numeric value.
All the solutions I found point to the dreaded eval() method. Especially with this being a user entered field, I'm concerned about just running eval("874.45 * 0.825 + 4000") and hoping to get a number out the back end.
I suppose I could do a web service call back to the server (ASP.NET), but I'm afraid a slight delay will create some frustration from the user.
Does anyone know of either a good technique or existing libraries?

What you really need here is an "expression parser", because you're trying to allow users to express their values using a small domain-specific language.
The basic mechanics work like this:
Tokenize their expression into operators and operands.
Based on the order of operations (e.g, where multiplication is evaluated with higher priority than addition), push the operators and operands onto a stack.
Pop the operands from the stack and push intermediate results back onto the stack. Repeat until the stack is empty.
I've done this a gazillion times for different "little languages" throughout my projects. But never in javascript. So I can't directly recommend a suitable parsing library.
But a quick googling reveals "PEG.js". Check it out here:
http://pegjs.majda.cz/
All of the examples in their documentation are for exactly the kind of "expression parser" you're trying to build.

Simply multiply it by 1 and it will force javascript to treat it as an integer from then on.
Eg
int = '2343.34' * 1;
int = input * 1;

And what is so wrong about the eval in this case?
As for me it perfectly fits in your task. If you want to shield its execution context then you can define function like:
function calc(str) {
var window = null, self = null, document = null;
// other globals like: $ = null, jQuery = null, etc.
try { return eval(str); } catch(e) {...}
}
and use it where you need to interpret the string. Simple and effective.

I think eval can pose a lesser security risk if you parse the resulting string and validate its content to be only digits and operators and execute the evaluation by faking the outer scope variables like document etc as 'var document = null'.

Good resources for extreme minified JavaScript (js1k-style)

As I'm sure most of the JavaScripters out there are aware, there's a new, Christmas-themed js1k. I'm planning on entering this time, but I have no experience producing such minified code. Does anyone know any good resources for this kind of thing?

Google Closure Compiler is a good javascript minifier.
There is a good online tool for quick use, or you can download the tool and run it as part of a web site build process.
Edit: Added a non-exhaustive list of tricks that you can use to minify JavaScript extremely, before using a minifier:
Shorten long variable names
Use shortened references to built in variables like d=document;w=window.
Set Interval
The setInterval function can take either a function or a string. Pass in a string to reduce the number of characters used: setInterval('a--;b++',10). Note that passing in a string forces an eval invokation so it will be slower than passing in a function.
Reduce Mathematical Calculations
Example a=b+b+b can be reduced to a=3*b.
Use Scientific Notation
10000 can be expressed in scientific notation as 1E4 saving 2 bytes.
Drop leading Zeroes
0.2 = .2 saves a byte
Ternery Operator
if (a > b) {
result = x;
}
else {
result = y;
}
can be expressed as result=a>b?x:y
Drop Braces
Braces are only required for blocks of more than one statement.
Operator Precedence
Rely on operator precedence rather than adding unneeded brackets which aid code readability.
Shorten Variable Assignment
Rather than function x(){a=1,b=2;...}() pass values into the function, function x(a,b){...}(1,2)
Think outside the box
Don't automatically reach for standard ways of doing things. Rather than using d.getElementById('p') to get a reference to a DOM element, could you use b.children[4] where d=document;b=body.
Original source for above list of tricks:
http://thingsinjars.com/post/293/the-quest-for-extreme-javascript-minification/

Spolto is right.
Any code minifier won't do the trick alone. You need to first optimize your code and then make some dirty manual tweaks.
In addition to Spolto's list of tricks I want to encourage the use of logical operators instead of the classical if else syntax. ex:
The following code
if(condition){
exp1;
}else{
exp2;
}
is somewhat equivalent to
condition&&exp1||exp2;
Another thing to consider might be multiple variable declaration :
var a = 1;var b = 2;var c = 1;
can be rewritten as :
var a=c=1,b=2;
Spolto is also right about the braces. You should drop them. But in addition, you should know that they can be dropped even for blocks of more expressions by writing the expressions delimited by a comma(with a leading ; of course) :
if(condition){
exp1;
exp2;
exp3;
}else{
exp4;
exp5;
}
Can be rewritten as :
if(condition)exp1,exp2,exp3;
else exp4,exp5;
Although it's not much (it saves you only 1 character/block for those who are counting), it might come in handy. (By the way, the latest Google Closure Compiler does this trick too).
Another trick worth mentioning is the controversial with functionality.
If you care more about the size, then you should use this because it might reduce code size.
For example, let's consider this object method:
object.method=function(){
this.a=this.b;
this.c++;
this.d(this.e);
}
This can be rewritten as :
object.method=function(){
with(this){
a=b;
c++;
d(e);
}
}
which is in most cases signifficantly smaller.
Something that most code packers & minifiers do not do is replacing large repeating tokens in the code with smaller ones. This is a nasty hack that also requires the use of eval, but since we're in it for the space, I don't think that should be a problem. Let's say you have this code :
a=function(){/*code here*/};
b=function(){/*code here*/};
c=function(){/*code here*/};
/*...*/
z=function(){/*code here*/};
This code has many "function" keywords repeating. What if you could replace them with a single(unused) character and then evaluate the code?
Here's how I would do it :
eval('a=F(){/*codehere*/};b=F(){/*codehere*/};c=F(){/*codehere*/};/*...*/z=F(){/*codehere*/};'.replace(/function/g,'F'));
Of course the replaced token(s) can be anything since our code is reduced to an evaluated string (ex: we could've replaced =function(){ with F, thus saving even more characters).
Note that this technique must be used with caution, because you can easily screw up your code with multiple text replacements; moreover, you should use it only in cases where it helps (ex: if you only have 4 function tokens, replacing them with a smaller token and then evaluating the code might actually increase the code length :
var a = "eval(''.replace(/function/g,'F'))".length,
b = ('function'.length-'F'.length)*4;
alert("you should" + (a<b?"":" NOT") + " use this technique!");

In the following link you'll find surprisingly good tricks to minify js code for this competition:
http://www.claudiocc.com/javascript-golfing/
One example: (extracted from section Short-circuit operators):
if (p) p=q; // before
p=p&&q; // after
if (!p) p=q; // before
p=p||q; // after
Or the more essoteric Canvas context hash trick:
// before
a.beginPath
a.fillRect
a.lineTo
a.stroke
a.transform
a.arc
// after
for(Z in a)a[Z[0]+(Z[6]||Z[2])]=a[Z];
a.ba
a.fc
a.ln
a.sr
a.to
a.ac
And here is another resource link with amazingly good tricks: https://github.com/jed/140bytes/wiki/Byte-saving-techniques

First off all, just throwing your code into a minifier won't help you that much. You need to have the extreme small file size in mind when you write the code. So in part, you need to learn all the tricks yourself.
Also, when it comes to minifiers, UglifyJS is the new shooting star here, its output is smaller than GCC's and it's way faster too. And since it's written in pure JavaScript it should be trivial for you to find out what all the tricks are that it applies.
But in the end it all comes down to whether you can find an intelligent, small solution for something that's awsome.

Also:
Dean Edwards Packer
http://dean.edwards.name/packer/
Uglify JS
http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/uglifyjs

A friend wrote jscrush packer for js1k.
Keep in mind to keep as much code self-similar as possible.
My workflow for extreme packing is: closure (pretty print) -> hand optimizations, function similarity, other code similarity -> closure (whitespace only) -> jscrush.
This packs away about 25% of the data.
There's also packify, but I haven't tested that myself.

This is the only online version of #cowboy's packer script:
http://iwantaneff.in/packer/
Very handy for packing / minifying JS