I'm here for the web developer interview

Hired!

I think I puked a little in my mouth. Still feel the taste of my sugar-less Monster energy drink, btw...

>Still feel the taste of my sugar-less Monster energy drink, btw...
Confirmed cum guzzling whore and boomer

What gave it away?

hired! you can thank robert for the recommendation

PLEASE STEP ON ME MOMMY

Ummmmm do u no how 2 boolean a word press??!

>hmm u no wats excel nigguh?

(function() {
var fun = function() {
var i;
for (i; i < 9001; i++) {
i = i - 1;
console.log('not over 9000');
if (i > 9000) {
console.log('over 9000');
}
}
};
}());

So sir, did I pass the interview?

>var
>not let
disgusting

Because it's declared within an IIFE it cannot be accessed outside the IIFE's scope, there is no point in using let here.

Let is literally for retards who cannot manage scopes in JavaScript

>tfw too weak and straight to do ballet

feels bad man

no the NANI word

You sir do not not understand Javascript.

I do, I worked with ECMAS before let was even implemented. You can manage scopes with IIFEs because each function has its own scope and variables within that scope cannot be accessed by a scope on an upper level.

by anything outside that scope*, there is zero need for let other than to provide an easier way for idiotic devs who do not actually understand how JS scope works to manage it.

Kind of like how class is just an easier way for idiotic devs who don't understand prototypal inheritance to work with it.

fuck off tranny

>user makes a correct post
>"no ur wrong retard"
>user calls response retarded
>"no u"

to be fair, prototypal inheritance as a concept sucks. Especially the way it's written. Class aren't better since they're just duck tape working with prototype to make it look like it's regular classes.

Using modules and linking objects are all you need.

Prototypal inheritance as a concept is better than the classical structure. It's just much harder to wrap your head around, which I suppose could lead to it being a worse concept overall.