Develop Reference

Bluebird promisifyAll doesn't work in a vanilla case

I'm trying to promisify a Pusher.js function and I am a bit confused why the last technique works and the first two don't, since the first two seem to be following the documentation example.
The errors I get are: triggerAsync not defined.
Sample
var Pusher = require('pusher');
var pusher = new Pusher(params);
Promise.promisifyAll(Pusher); //this doesn't work for some reason
var triggerAsync = Promise.promisify(pusher.trigger); //this also doesn't work
Promise.promisifyAll(Object.getPrototypeOf(pusher)); //this works

...since the first two seem to be following the documentation example.
So is the last! If we take a look at the documentation for Promise#promisifyAll over at bluebirdjs.com (at the bottom of the document) you will find this, which gives a short explanation for why you need to employ this behaviour:
In all of the above cases the library made its classes available in one way or another. If this is not the case, you can still promisify by creating a throwaway instance:
var ParanoidLib = require("...");
var throwAwayInstance = ParanoidLib.createInstance();
Promise.promisifyAll(Object.getPrototypeOf(throwAwayInstance));
// Like before, from this point on, all new instances + even the throwAwayInstance suddenly support promises
So although it doesn't give us a definitive answer for why we need to do this with Pusher, we can at least be sure that it is because it doesn't "[make] its classes available in one way or another". You can also rest assured that you aren't necessarily doing it wrong (you shouldn't use this method unless you have to).

EmberJS - Adding a binding after creation of object

I am trying to bind a property of an object to a property that's bound in an ArrayController. I want all of this to occur after the object has already been created and added to the ArrayController.
Here is a fiddle with a simplified example of what I'm trying to achieve.
I am wondering if I'm having problems with scope - I've already tried to bind to the global path (i.e. 'App.objectTwoController.objectOne.param3') to set the binding to. I've also tried to bind directly to the objectOneController (which is not what I want to do, but tried it just to see if it worked) and that still didn't work.
Any ideas on what I'm doing incorrectly? Thanks in advance for taking the time to look at this post.

So in the example below (I simplified it a little bit, but same principles apply)... The method below ends up looking for "objectOne" on "objectTwo" instead of on the "objectTwoController".
var objectTwoController: Em.Object.create({
objectOneBinding: 'App.objectOne',
objectTwoBinding: 'App.objectTwo',
_onSomething: function() {
var objectTwo = this.get('objectTwo');
objectTwo.bind('param2', Em.Binding.from('objectOne.param3'));
}.observes('something')
});
The problem is that you can't bind between two none relative objects. If you look in the "connect" method in ember you will see that it only takes one reference object (this) in which to observe both paths (this is true for 9.8.1 from your example and the ember-pre-1.0 release).
You have few options (that I can think of at least).
First: You can tell the objects about each other and in turn the relative paths will start working. This will actually give "objectTwo" an object to reference when binding paths.
....
objectTwo.set('objectOne', this.get('objectOne');
....
Second: You could add your own observer/computed property that will just keep the two in sync (but it is a little more verbose). You might be able to pull off something really slick but it maybe difficult. Even go so far as writing your own binding (like Transforms) to allow you to bind two non-related objects as long as you have paths to both.
_param3: function(){
this.setPath('objectTwo.param2', this.getPath('objectOne.param3');
}.observes('objectOne.param3')
You can make these dynamically and not need to pre-define them...
Third: Simply make them global paths; "App.objectOneController.content.param3" should work as your binding "_from" path (but not sure how much this helps you in your real application, because with larger applications I personally don't like everything global).
EDIT: When setting the full paths. Make sure you wait until end of the current cycle before fetching the value because bindings don't always update until everything is flushed. Meaning, your alert message needs to be wrapped in Ember.run.next or you will not see the change.

Why shouldn't I access elements more "directly" (elemId.innerHTML)

I've seen some JavaScript code to access HTML elements like this: elementID.innerHTML, and it works, though practically every tutorial I searched for uses document.getElementById(). I don't even know if there's a term for the short addressing.
At first I thought simplistically that each id'ed HTML element was directly under window but using getParent() shows the tree structure is there, so it didn't matter that elements I wanted were nested. I wrote a short test case:
http://jsfiddle.net/hYzLu/
<div id="fruit">Mango<div id="color">red</div></div>
<div id="car">Chevy</div>
<div id="result" style="color: #A33"></div>
result.innerHTML = "I like my " + color.innerHTML + " " + car.innerHTML;
The "short" method looks like a nice shortcut, but I feel there is something wrong with it for it practically not appearing in tutorials.
Why is document.getElementById() preferred, or may be even required in some cases?

Why shouldn't I access elements more “directly” (elemId.innerHTML)
Because, according to the others in this thread, referencing arbitrarily by id name is not fully supported.
So, what I think you should be doing instead is store their selections into a var, and then reference the var.
Try instead
var color = document.getElementById('color');
color.innerHTML = 'something';
The reason why this would be a good thing to do is that performing a lookup in the DOM is an expensive process, memory wise. And so if you store the element's reference into a variable, it becomes static. Thus you're not performing a lookup each time you want to .doSomething() to it.
Please note that javascript libraries tend to add shim functions to increase general function support across browsers. which would be a benefit to using, for example, jquery's selectors over pure javascript. Though, if you are in fact worried about memory / performance, native JS usually wins speed tests. (jsperf.com is a good tool for measuring speed and doing comparisons.)

It's safer I guess. If you had a variable named result in the same context that you are doing result.HTML I'm pretty sure the browser will throw a wobbler. Doing it in the way of document.getElementById() in this instance would obviously provide you with the associated DOM element.
Also, if you are dynamically adding HTML to the page I may be wrong, but you could also encounter unexpected behaviour in terms of what result is :)

Also I will add that not all ID's can have values that will not work as variable names. For instance if your ID is "nav-menu".
Although I suppose you could write window["nav-menu"].innerHTML
Which makes me think, what happens if you create a window level variable with the same name as an ID?
Checkout this jsfiddle (tested in chrome): http://jsfiddle.net/8yH5y/
This really seems like a bad idea altogether. Just use document.getElementById("id") and store the result to a variable if you will be using the reference more than once.

jQuery(#id).val() vs. getElementById(#id).value

I been searching but I can only find articles talking about one or the other. Which one is better?
I'm making a small web app where performance is not a big concern since there's nothing complex going on.
I considered using jQuery's val() function since maybe it solves some inconsistency I'm not aware of, but getElementById.value IS faster (although the end user won't notice.)
So which one should I use? Is jQuery's non-native method worth the lower performance to gain more compatibility?

The biggest advantage of using jQuery().val() over document.getElementById().value is that the former will not throw an error if no elements are matched, where-as the latter will. document.getElementById() returns null if no elements are matched, where-as jQuery() returns an empty jQuery object, which still supports all methods (but val() will return undefined).
There is no inconsistency when using .value for form elements. However, jQuery.val() standardises the interface for collecting the selected value in select boxes; where as in standard HTML you have to resort to using .options[this.selectedIndex].value.

If you're using <select> elements as well, .value won't work whereas .val() will.
I would not mind about performance of just getting a value. If you want the best performance, perhaps you shouldn't use a library at all.

jQuery does so many nice little error handling things (look below) that I would never write a line of javascript without jquery in a browser again.
First, val works on checkbox groups, selects, gets html, and the
like.
Second, $ lets you use sizzle selectors, so in the future, you can
easily switch between an ID and a CSS path.
Third, your code will be so much easier to read and maintain if you
just use jQuery, that the time you save maintaining your code
outweighs any speedup that you admit your users won't see. Finally,
jQuery is a very popular, very widely used library. They will make
$ and val as fast as they can.

I think using pure Javascript is quicker for the following reasons:
You won't have to learn more than pure js
If you don't want errors, use catch(exeption) (I think...)
You don't have to put in that little extra time to type in the code to initiate jquery
The browser responds quicker if you don't use jquery
Normal js works (in a better way) on checkboxes #johndodo
Thank you for listening to my answer.

I've been looking into the performance differences with this recently and, slightly unsurprisingly, using vanilla JS to grab a value is faster than using jQuery. However, the fallbacks that jQuery provides to prevent errors, like what #Matt mentioned, is very useful. Therefore, I tend to opt for the best of both worlds.
var $this = $(this),
$val = this.value || $this.val();
With that conditional statement, if this.value tries to throw an error, the code falls back to the jQuery .val() method.

Here https://www.dyn-web.com/tutorials/forms/checkbox/same-name-group.php is an implementation for checkboxes, apparently options just need to be named the same with the array brackets notation in the name i.e.: name="sport[]" then yu get the array inJavascript via: var sports = document.forms['demoForm'].elements['sport[]']
I was looking for a selection type field solution without using jQuery and I came across this solution:
The Selection group is an object: HTMLCollection, and it has a lenght method and a selectedOptions property, which allows you to iterate through its label properties to populate an Array with the selected options, which then you can use:
...
vehicleCol = document.getElementById('vehiculo').selectedOptions;
vehiculos = [];
if (vehicleCol !== undefined) {
for (let i = 0; i < vehicleCol.length; i++) {
vehiculos.push(vehicleCol[i].label.toLowerCase())
}
}
...

I'd use jQuery's val(). Shorter code means faster download time (in my opinion).

What jQuery annoyances should I be aware of as a Prototype user?

We're considering switching our site from Prototype to jQuery. Being all-too-familiar with Prototype, I'm well aware of the things about Prototype that I find limiting or annoying.
My question for jQuery users is: After working with jQuery for a while, what do you find frustrating? Are there things about jQuery that make you think about switching (back) to Prototype?

I think the only that gets me is that when I do a selection query for a single element I have to remember that it returns an array of elements even though I know there is only one. Normally, this doesn't make any difference unless you want to interact with the element directly instead of through jQuery methods.

Probably the only real issue I've ever ran into is $(this) scope problems. For example, if you're doing a nested for loop over elements and sub elements using the built in JQuery .each() function, what does $(this) refer to? In that case it refers to the inner-most scope, as it should be, but its not always expected.
The simple solution is to just cache $(this) to a variable before drilling further into a chain:
$("li").each(function() {
// cache this
var list_item = $(this);
// get all child a tags
list_item.find("a").each(function() {
// scope of this now relates to a tags
$(this).hide("slow");
});
});

My two pain points have been the bracket hell, can get very confusing
$('.myDiv').append($('<ul />').append($('<li />').text('content')));
My other common issue has to do with the use of JSON in jQuery, I always miss the last comma,
$('.myDiv').tabs({ option1:true, options2:false(, woops)});
Finally, I've been using jQuery for about 6 months now and I don't think I'll ever go back to prototypes. I absolutely love jQuery, and a lot of the tricks they use have helped me learn a lot. one cool trick that I like is using string literals for method calls, I never really did that too much with prototypes.
$('.myDiv')[(add ? 'add' : 'remove') + 'Class']('redText');

(The only thing I can think of is that this is the element instead of a jQuery object in $("...").each(function)-calls, as $(element) is more often used then just the element. And that extremly minor thing is just about it.
Example of the above (simplified and I know that there are other much better ways to do this, I just couldn't think of a better example now):
// Make all divs that has foo=bar pink.
$("div").each(function(){
if($(this).attr("foo") == "bar"){
$(this).css("background", "pink");
}
});
each is a function that takes a function as parameter, that function is called once for each matching element. In the function passed, this refers to the actual browser DOM-element, but I find that you often will want to use some jQuery function on each element, thus having to use $(this). If this had been set to what $(this) is, you'd get shorter code, and you could still access the DOM element object using this.get(0). Now I see the reason for things being as they are, namely that writing $(this) instead of this, is hardly that cumbersome, and in case you can do what you want to do with the DOM element the way it is is faster than the way it could have been, and the other way wouldn't be faster in the case you want $(this).)

I don't think there are any real gotchas, or even any lingering annoyances. The other answers here seem to confirm this - issues are caused simply by the slightly different API and different JavaScript coding style that jQuery encourages.
I started using Prototype a couple of years ago and found it a revelation. So powerful, so elegant. After a few months I tried out jQuery and discovered what power and elegance really are. I don't remember any annoyances. Now I am back working on a project using Prototype and it feels like a step back (to be fair, we're using Prototype 1.5.1).
If you reversed the question - "What Prototype annoyances should I be aware of as a jQuery user?" - you would get a lot more answers.

Nope. Nada. Nyet.

.each:
jQuery (you need Index, even if you're not using it):
$.each(collection, function(index, item) {
item.hide();
});
Prototype (you're usually using the item, so you can omit the index):
collection.each(function(item) {
item.hide();
});

This is really only an annoyance if you're doing a lot of DOM manipulation. PrototypeJs automatically adds its API to DOM Elements, so this works in prototypejs (jQuery of course doesn't do this):
var el = document.createElement("div");
el.addClassName("hello"); // addClassName is a prototypejs method implemented on the native HTMLElement
Even without running the native element through the $() function.
PS: Should note that this doesn't work in IE.