If you understood the language, you'd understand why 'this' works the way it does -- and why it wouldn't make any sense for it to work any other way. Your objection would vanish as you'd recognize that it's nonsense.
You also seem to misunderstand classical oo, as you see inheritance and encapsulation as essential, even though one violates the other. I'm not sure you're really capable of making a competent evaluation.
Classes are an incredibly powerful way to encapsulate functionality. Javascript has never had the proper concept of a class (let alone inheritance)
Now I know you're deeply confused. Prototypal inheritance is far more powerful and flexable than classical inheritance. This page should give you a basic overview. This paper should clear up any remaining misconceptions.
Even understanding how the "this" keyword works is a nightmare
That's because you don't understand the basics of the language. If 'this' worked the way you described, the language would be fundamentally broken. Take 30 seconds and learn how 'this' works. It's neither complicated nor confusing and makes perfect sense in the context of the language.
You seem to have very strong opinions on the language while you don't understand even the very basics. Try learning the language first. You'll find that your criticisms will quickly disappear.
. It's fucking idiotic that it has taken over 20 years for JavaScript to get something that barely resembles a usable form of object orientation.
You're doing it wrong. Classes were an ugly kludge from the beginning -- they benefit compilers far more than developers. JS's approach to objects is superior in just about every conceivable way.
You bought in to a bit too much of the OO propaganda in the 90's.
Really, the greatest thing about JavaScript is that you're very unlikely to run across ridiculous things like an "abstract factory factory".
Then you get to the point where each operator can run multiple trucks.
I can see a system where a couple of people, working together, could move around a hundred trailers across the country along a fixed route -- possibly along a pair of rails running parallel to one another. Something like that would put an awful lot of truckers out of work.
I'm running two versions of FireFox right now (the current 38.0.1 release and 40.0a2 nightly) Combined, both are using less than 700mb. I've had Nightly open for a little over a day, and the current release for about 6 days.
Where is the humbleness of a scholar, the curiosity of a adventurer and the tenacity of a researcher?
This is Slashdot. By long tradition, we present first the ego of the autodidact and the arrogance of the Trekkie. As for tenacity, the Slashdot user is unrivaled -- holding fast to the belief that their thoughts opinions are infallible.
In other words, instead of nerds that we are attracting, Slashdot ends up attracting a bunch of ignorant assholes who think they are smarter than the rest of the humankind
That would be correct. Though to be fair, it's really only been this way since ~1997.
That's a bit nebulous, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you believe talent to be in-born (which I do not) or earned (which I do). Either way, that argument can be applied to every skillful activity.
That doesn't make literacy (computer or other) useless at all.
Re-read my post. You'll quickly discover that I agree with that completely.
That seems unlikely. It turns out that educated parents are more likely to be crazy anti-vaxxers.
As for homeopathy, a chemistry class isn't going to explain what homeopathy is or why it's nonsense. You'll find most people think it means 'natural'. Not that it matters. Avoiding the stuff is tricky. These days, homeopathic remedies go out of their way to avoid being identified as homeopathic. Worse, non-homeopathic things are being clearly labeled as homeopathic (like some zinc products) further confusing the issue for people who at least try to stay informed. (I put more blame on the pharmacy for allowing that on the shelves in the first place than I do homeopaths.)
A little knowledge of chemistry isn't going to help them identify and avoid the stuff. A health class would be far better suited for that.
Programming is not special. It does not require a "special mind" or other magical in-born trait. Whatever cognitive skills you believe are requisite are shared by many other subjects. Nor is programming a particularly difficult skill to acquire -- children can, and often do, teach themselves. Odds are good that you taught yourself sometime around the age of 10, +/- a year or two.
"Oh, but only a few can be truly great", someone is bound to say in one form or another. Then we'd better not waste resources teaching children to write, as only a few will have the skill of Hemingway. Nor should we teach them arithmetic, as so few are capable of becoming great mathematicians.
The ability to write computer programs should not be such a large part of your identity. It's like seeing smug posts from folks who can drive a vehicle with a manual transmission -- a skill that took me an hour to learn, and a week to master. That does not make me special. Being able to write computer programs doesn't make me special. They're both simple skills anyone can learn.
Slashdot Mirror
What strange confusion of ideas has lead you to consider such a ridiculous notion?
Mozilla isn't user-hostile. Quite the opposite, I'd say.
SVG
You're welcome.
If you understood the language, you'd understand why 'this' works the way it does -- and why it wouldn't make any sense for it to work any other way. Your objection would vanish as you'd recognize that it's nonsense.
You also seem to misunderstand classical oo, as you see inheritance and encapsulation as essential, even though one violates the other. I'm not sure you're really capable of making a competent evaluation.
Classes are an incredibly powerful way to encapsulate functionality. Javascript has never had the proper concept of a class (let alone inheritance)
Now I know you're deeply confused. Prototypal inheritance is far more powerful and flexable than classical inheritance. This page should give you a basic overview. This paper should clear up any remaining misconceptions.
Even understanding how the "this" keyword works is a nightmare
That's because you don't understand the basics of the language. If 'this' worked the way you described, the language would be fundamentally broken. Take 30 seconds and learn how 'this' works. It's neither complicated nor confusing and makes perfect sense in the context of the language.
You seem to have very strong opinions on the language while you don't understand even the very basics. Try learning the language first. You'll find that your criticisms will quickly disappear.
. It's fucking idiotic that it has taken over 20 years for JavaScript to get something that barely resembles a usable form of object orientation.
You're doing it wrong. Classes were an ugly kludge from the beginning -- they benefit compilers far more than developers. JS's approach to objects is superior in just about every conceivable way.
You bought in to a bit too much of the OO propaganda in the 90's.
Really, the greatest thing about JavaScript is that you're very unlikely to run across ridiculous things like an "abstract factory factory".
Windows 10 has the same minimum requirements as 7. Like Windows 8, I expect to see noticeable performance gains.
No.
Then you get to the point where each operator can run multiple trucks.
I can see a system where a couple of people, working together, could move around a hundred trailers across the country along a fixed route -- possibly along a pair of rails running parallel to one another. Something like that would put an awful lot of truckers out of work.
It would have taken less time, but the engineers kept bursting into flames...
Why?
I'm pretty sure Galileo wasn't attacked by the church for any of his scientific work.
Again. It's like a plague.
I'm running two versions of FireFox right now (the current 38.0.1 release and 40.0a2 nightly) Combined, both are using less than 700mb. I've had Nightly open for a little over a day, and the current release for about 6 days.
Free Candy
Every time I see this, I mentally replace the word "good" with the word "true".
Where is the humbleness of a scholar, the curiosity of a adventurer and the tenacity of a researcher?
This is Slashdot. By long tradition, we present first the ego of the autodidact and the arrogance of the Trekkie. As for tenacity, the Slashdot user is unrivaled -- holding fast to the belief that their thoughts opinions are infallible.
In other words, instead of nerds that we are attracting, Slashdot ends up attracting a bunch of ignorant assholes who think they are smarter than the rest of the humankind
That would be correct. Though to be fair, it's really only been this way since ~1997.
but few do it well without some talent for it.
That's a bit nebulous, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you believe talent to be in-born (which I do not) or earned (which I do). Either way, that argument can be applied to every skillful activity.
That doesn't make literacy (computer or other) useless at all.
Re-read my post. You'll quickly discover that I agree with that completely.
That seems unlikely. It turns out that educated parents are more likely to be crazy anti-vaxxers.
As for homeopathy, a chemistry class isn't going to explain what homeopathy is or why it's nonsense. You'll find most people think it means 'natural'. Not that it matters. Avoiding the stuff is tricky. These days, homeopathic remedies go out of their way to avoid being identified as homeopathic. Worse, non-homeopathic things are being clearly labeled as homeopathic (like some zinc products) further confusing the issue for people who at least try to stay informed. (I put more blame on the pharmacy for allowing that on the shelves in the first place than I do homeopaths.)
A little knowledge of chemistry isn't going to help them identify and avoid the stuff. A health class would be far better suited for that.
Why does this come up in every discussion?
Programming is not special. It does not require a "special mind" or other magical in-born trait. Whatever cognitive skills you believe are requisite are shared by many other subjects. Nor is programming a particularly difficult skill to acquire -- children can, and often do, teach themselves. Odds are good that you taught yourself sometime around the age of 10, +/- a year or two.
"Oh, but only a few can be truly great", someone is bound to say in one form or another. Then we'd better not waste resources teaching children to write, as only a few will have the skill of Hemingway. Nor should we teach them arithmetic, as so few are capable of becoming great mathematicians.
The ability to write computer programs should not be such a large part of your identity. It's like seeing smug posts from folks who can drive a vehicle with a manual transmission -- a skill that took me an hour to learn, and a week to master. That does not make me special. Being able to write computer programs doesn't make me special. They're both simple skills anyone can learn.
Fuck you.
That may sound crude, but it's the only rational response.
It took him years, but he's finally made it half-way through Atlas Shrugged.
Indeed. I didn't expect much, but that's surprising few.
I guess he figured that televangelism was easier and far more profitable than astrophysics.
It's too far, and too hard to hit. Send him to the Sun.
f=ma