HN user

sebilasse

142 karma
Posts4
Comments72
View on HN

Bluecode | Remote | Full-time | Head of Engineering, Elixir Dev

Bluecode (https://bluecode.com) is building a European payment scheme, mobile-first, fully anonymous. Home markets are Austria and Germany. We recently raised a $20M round to continue our mission. Tech stack is Elixir/Postgres/AWS/K18.

- Head of Engineering (Remote, within EU timezone) https://apply.workable.com/bluecode/j/0C50839757/

- Senior Elixir Developer (Fully remote) https://apply.workable.com/bluecode/j/0664DF1081/

It's super popular all over south-east asia. One of the reasons are the cute and fun "stickers" that can convey 80% of your daily emotions and situations. Stuck in overcrowded subway? there's a sticker for that.

SEEKING WORK - Remote, onsite negotiable

Full stack: Ruby, Rails, JavaScript, RubyMotion, Torquebox

- Web developer since 15 years, startups since 2007, as founder and employee

- Expert-level Ruby and JavaScript

- Created RubyJS, a port of ruby core classes to JavaScript. http://rubyjs.org

- Speaker at Ruby and JS conferences around the world

- Commits to Rails, HAML, jQuery

- 7 years Ruby/Rails

- Writing performant code in Ruby and JS

- Remote consulting/freelance since 3 years, currently in Asia/Pacific (UTC +07:00)

- Excellent at kickstarting projects and getting your MVP out.

- Open for onsite visits

Profile page and contact info here: http://hasclass.com

SEEKING WORK - Remote/Asia-Pacific and Europe

Ruby, Rails, RubyMotion and JavaScript

I created RubyJS, a port of all Ruby methods to JavaScript, that gave me a fairly well understanding of both languages. Speaker at various Ruby/JS conferences around the world. 6 years Ruby, Ruby on Rails (before Java, PHP). Fluent in the whole stack.

More info and email here: http://hasclass.com

'while' is actually faster than 'for'. But in this example the while loop does extra work (mutating the array). while loops are always faster than forEach, as they simply do less work.

The for loop uses array access "items[j]", and the while loop uses "items.shift". At the end of the for loop 'items' is still the same, at the end of the while loop 'items' is empty.

He probably just wanted to test the difference between 'while ' and 'do while' and takes the fastest possible solution (for) as a reference. It's however good to know that 'do while' is that much slower compared to while.

Yes. Primitives are boxed. However method arguments are only boxed when needed, which makes it as fast as normal. In the methods internally are all using JS primitives (there are some left-overs where that's not the case yet). Wrapper objects are similarly fast as extending native JS types.

RubyJS creator here. I was just missing so many (native) methods in javascript. i liked the standard library of javascript and there is an extensive public ruby testsuite that i could use to test my implementation against. Plus i liked the idea of taking something that already works elsewhere and translate it JS, instead of coming up with my own API. IMO it's the same as using underscore/lodash, stringjs, etc, just all in the same library with the same coding standards and interoperability between classes.

SEEKING WORK - Remote with onsite visits (based in asia/pacific)

Ruby, Rails, JavaScript, RubyMotion

- Web developer since 15 years, startups since 2007, as founder and employee

- Expert-level Ruby and JavaScript

- Created of RubyJS, an open source project that Matz the creator of Ruby endorsed. http://rubyjs.org

- Speaker at Ruby and JS conferences around the world

- Commits to Rails/HAML, jQuery

- 6 years Ruby/Rails, 2012 focus on JS and CoffeeScript

- Writing highly performant code in Ruby and JS

- Remote consulting/freelance since 2 years, currently in Asia/Pacific (UTC +07:00)

- Excellent at kickstarting projects and getting your MVP out.

- Open for onsite visits

More information and contact info on: http://hasclass.com