A one-touch-back key isn't likely to kill anyone, but it's still an error hazard.
Haven't you cave dwellers heard of mouse gestures?
The GO referred to people with accessibilty issues, and not everyone with accessibility issues can use a mouse. Many who can cannot use it with enough accuracy to use gestures. So please, don't start flinging insults at people who physically can't use a computer the same way you would.
But, I'm also annoyed that it's gone, because I used it frequently.
Instead of them being so binary, they could have just made it a configurable option.
They should simply be promoting Alt+left arrow hard as the alternative. It has existed in all browsers since the days of Netscape Navigator, it is not shared with any other common operation, and all-in-all is very difficult to do unintentionally. There are webpages out there that switch focus away from form elements unexpectedly, and that's where backspace-as-back-button gets very dangerous.
I recently used a site where if you delete all the text in a textbox, the keyboard focus goes back to the page. Major design flaw - if you delete by holding down backspace, you're almost certainly going to end up going back a page. It took me ages to buy that ticket....
Local function call != Context switch.
Still has overhead, but nothing like a context switch.
But macros only have overhead at compile-time. I was basically lamenting the lack of macros in Python. Python is far too dynamic.
Applications? HTML was never meant for "applications". It was meant for web *pages*. Websites.
And it's not even very good for those, because the guys that wrote it were still thinking of paper publishing. What was the first major use for unnecessary JS bloat? Interactive menus. Even now, the least JS you can use for a menu hierarchy is a quick change of hidden/visible attributes in an onClick attribute.
Indeed, if code is nested 8 levels deep, four or more of those levels should probably be separate functions. The first function might be:
That's a procedure, not a function.
OK, so I'm being pedantic, but I'm actually a big fan of functional programming as a way of thinking, and the more I reduce my code to short subroutines, the more it bugs me that I am still writing procedural code rather than functional. In your example, procedural imperative code works best (by avoiding the need for recursion), but it's still true that FP (where suitable) very quickly forces you to produce functions that can be analysed within human working memory.
Don't get me wrong, if it weren't for math and technology my career wouldn't exist, but why exactly do we need entire generations of programmers? Shouldn't we be teaching kids to pursue their interests instead of forcing some ideal on them?
Erm... look at the summary/article more closely. This is not about teaching computer skills, but using computers to personalise and individualise learners, and this would indeed offer the opportunity for kids to pursue their own interests, and for these to be related to curricular goals... if done properly. But it would take billions, not millions, to really do this properly.
One of the largest entertainment media companies in the world. I don't really think they need much by way of additional exposure.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein