PS: On a sidenote, and as Torrent Freak has written about them, I must point that Time4Popcorn are pretending to be developing another version of Popcorn Time. The truth is that they are ripping some of our community work without crediting the authors. We would obviously have no concerns if they acknowledged the source of the work, as Popcorn Time is an open source project. The latest example being how they compiled in their app 5 days of our UI work.
I can understand the logic, but no one using Popcorn time will credit the movie for being their own. No one thinks the star of Hunger Games was the developer of Popcorn Time, or the person pirating it, and no one is claiming as such.
Secondly, from my cursory glance, it seems as if T4P can/will easily spread malware, but this could just be fearmongering on Popcorn Time's end.
That said whenever I see something on raganwald.com I'll still read it :)
The alternative he presented is not to share private state between class and superclass. This really isn't a "know the right tool for the right situation" kind of thing -- it's almost never a good thing.
You could accomplish this alternative, among other ways, by:
1. Using composition and delegation.
2. Using mixins, if your language supports them.
3. Using inheritance, but depending only upon your superclass's public interface.
Despite what your teachers and your parents may have told you, your opinion is not inherently valid. You have shown yourself to be ignorant of too many things to provide a meaningful contribution to this discussion.
"confirming or denying the very existence of a vacuum cleaner design, a Swiffer design, or even a design for a better hand towel would apparently expose the U.S. government and its citizens to exceptionally grave danger"
The source for that quote is Mohammed's attorney, I feel like he has a bit of latitude to criticize the government. He's also the source for the very sympathetic descriptions of Mohammed in the article.
Not that he doesn't have a point. Its just worth noting the article is a little opaque about the sources.
this smells like a js engine optimization. you wouldn't expect substantially different machine code to run for "Direct assignment" and "other". i wouldn't be surprised if the loop is being unrolled or something.
They could all be reasonably unrolled, so it's probably something else.
I expect the engine can more easily calculate the final required Array size and preallocate it upfront avoiding resize operation on each loop iteration. (which is anyway JS best practice when possible)