Echo JS 0.11.0

Well, it's the usual drill: when not holding primitive values, it's the reference to the object to be immutable, not the object itself.
You're better off with Object.freeze (which does not deep-freeze it anyway).

> Ok, as I said for another commenter, it seems that you missed the point.

Or maybe you haven't been clear enough?

> Eric and Feross were _examples_.

In fact, I said "for example Eric Elliott..." Can't I use your own examples?

> my post aim to _ask_ what you people think about it, if we can do something about if, if you think it's ok like this, if you feel the same way I do.

And that's exactly what I posted.
Or maybe you don't think I did because that wasn't the answer you were expecting?

Arrogant people are harmful to *every* community, not just Javascript's. But still, as a general rule it's better to point out toxic behaviors right when they happen, not with a call-to-arms action.

You can also do that publically, so if you're right more will follow your complaint and the recipient will eventually get the message. And if they don't, you can still ignore them. Or just ignore those parts you don't like.

Now, for example Eric Elliott has been told quite some times how draconian his opinions sound, and how they put people off at times. He's not changed much but still, you can be smart about it and think: "It's just Eric's opinion after all", and if everything's is fine with you then it's ok and you can treasure all of his good points.

Remember that not everyone is a master of communication. Maybe some just fail to give the right impression but they're wonderful persons in other contexts.

And thank you for the sarcasm.
How come every comment from you must be this sour?

(I didn't downvote, by the way.)

Man, the grammar in the article is pretty bad...

Anyway, I don't think I'll use it until it'll have tree-shaking, but kudos for the effort. Creating a (decent) modern bundler isn't an easy task at all.

Ah, and another thing: referencing the project's root with "~". Really not a fan of it. I won't probably never load a module from the home directory, but this is messing with a widely estabilished convention.

I really don't get this approach to CSS. How is writing "c4 co2 mx1" any good if not for saving a couple of bytes - that could be shaved off by a minifier and a good bundling system anyway?
And if you want to "atomize" CSS like that, why don't you use inline styles and call it a day?
I feel like all the possible semantic approach is lost in the process.

Pretty old news, my friend.
Already reported here, too.

In English, please.

I'm dodging the problem because that's what you probably should do. Deep recursion brings a lot of problems in JavaScript - first of all, the stack's depth.

But you don't seem to even need that stack, since you're ready to use setTimeout, discarding the closure's scope: that's actually a clear sign that you should use another approach, probably iterative. That would give you a good performance boost too.

That's why using setTimeout is generally frowned upon: it's a hack to get over a language limitation that could be solved with other, more efficient techniques.

So I don't recommend using setTimeout, because I don't recommend using recursion in the first place. Tail call optimization, where available, could solve the depth problem but it won't yield a performance as good as an iterative approach.

The first thing to ask yourself is: why do I need such a deep recursion in the first place? Isn't there a better way?