You're drowning. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with your uninformed opinions. JS has been impressively stable, and cross-browser issues have been negligible for a long time now -- none of which, I'll remind you, have been language implementation compatibility issues.
Listening to you, one would think that the web barely functioned, with users needing multiple browsers, and various versions of each, to use a handful of sites. That's clearly not the case.
Here in reality, the web is developing nicely in to a convenient application platform. JS is an impressive language, far more sophisticated and capable than the alternatives you've suggested. (New and constructor functions were the big mistakes, leading to all sorts of confusion, and later hate, for those who didn't take the time to learn the language before using it. Luckily, they're unnecessary. Try actually learning the language. I'll bet your opinion will quickly change.)
also, bet your shit doesn't run on the browser on my son's non-smart net10 phone
I'll bet your python program doesn't run either. What was your point again? That you don't like JS or that the web is incapable of being used exactly how it's being used?
"is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"
Neither. Teach a man to fish, you know?
I could provide an argument, but it's pointless. They'll just spout more nonsense in defense of the nonsense they're repeating. If you're ability to reason and understanding of logic is that poor, you're not equipped to handle it. Better to let them work out the details themselves. Thinking is skilled work, after all.
If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"
Got it? Great, let's take that and apply it to the statement in question:
You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.
Do you see the problem with that statement now?
This is what happens when people trust Randall Munroe to do their thinking for them. (See: xkcd 1235 for the origin of the parent's nonsense.)
Yes. We took the time to learn the language first. We understand things like closures and anonymous functions and understand the value of prototype-based programming. We know how dynamic typing works because we're not morons. We know how 'this' works and understand that the language would be completely broken if it worked like you think it should.
Yeah, I'd call that a 'different mental space' from yours.
It has flaws, sure, but so does every other language. It's also an incredibly clever and well-designed language. You're obligated to learn it first, of course. I know the syntax looks familiar, but it's not Java or C.
This is wrong. There are no classes. Yes, they are being introduced in ES6 -- which is sure to be remembered as the biggest mistake ever made, despite the fact that they're essentially sugar. Pretending to be 'like java' with constructor functions and new was obviously a huge mistake. Why double-down?
(To everyone else reading) They're quite controversial. Not only are they unnecessary, but they introduce unnecessary complexity -- with no obvious benefit to compensate. It's pretty well established that prototypal OO is superior to classical OO in every way. It's simpler, requiring users to understand fewer concepts and yet it's still far more 'powerful'. On 'powerful' I'll direct you elsewhere as I'm not interested in arguing this point with the kool-aid drinking OO zealots. Search for something like 'prototypes vs classes'. If you have it, put your ACM DL subscription to good use.
(While I'm complaining. Arrows? => Way to introduce inconsistency, ECMA! )
although most of "anyone" will probably write you a horrible kludgy mess instead
I'd say that this is true for every language. Never judge the quality of a language by the quality of the code you inherit. No language can encourage developers to write 'good' or 'bad' code.
Slashdot Mirror
, full class/inheritance structures, and many other things.
Total fail. Javascript is not Java, C#, etc. Google "prototype-based programming" or put your ACM DL subscription to good use.
You made an awful lot of extra work for yourself.
My sarcasm detector is going off, so forgive this reply if I'm off:
There really are tons of "good examples of on the web of HTML5 and JS providing fast, standards-based 3D." Do a quick search.
LOL!
Too funny. It's like you're a time-traveler from 2005.
So you agree with me then. Great.
PDO was released with PHP 5.1 and available for 5.0 8 years ago.
Your only complaint was address a long time ago. Let it go, man, let it go.
I wouldn't. Name mangling being a good enough reason for the instances that pop in to my head at the moment.
You're drowning. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with your uninformed opinions. JS has been impressively stable, and cross-browser issues have been negligible for a long time now -- none of which, I'll remind you, have been language implementation compatibility issues.
Listening to you, one would think that the web barely functioned, with users needing multiple browsers, and various versions of each, to use a handful of sites. That's clearly not the case.
Here in reality, the web is developing nicely in to a convenient application platform. JS is an impressive language, far more sophisticated and capable than the alternatives you've suggested. (New and constructor functions were the big mistakes, leading to all sorts of confusion, and later hate, for those who didn't take the time to learn the language before using it. Luckily, they're unnecessary. Try actually learning the language. I'll bet your opinion will quickly change.)
also, bet your shit doesn't run on the browser on my son's non-smart net10 phone
I'll bet your python program doesn't run either. What was your point again? That you don't like JS or that the web is incapable of being used exactly how it's being used?
Well, okay. It's never caused me any problems and it's been useful to me.
Your experience is different. You've never found it useful and it's caused you problems.
I'll bet we could make a whole list of common language features that match that. Should we call those design flaws as well?
Maybe. Which version of python does your program run under? They have a lot of trouble maintaining compatibility between minor version numbers.
Further, everyone has a browser. Not everyone has python. Fewer still have the random version of python you need to run your program.
LOL! One of Randall's worst, by far. IIRC, he even takes a beating on the forum for that one.
"is any of what I said an argument or am I trying to let the reader do my work?"
Neither. Teach a man to fish, you know?
I could provide an argument, but it's pointless. They'll just spout more nonsense in defense of the nonsense they're repeating. If you're ability to reason and understanding of logic is that poor, you're not equipped to handle it. Better to let them work out the details themselves. Thinking is skilled work, after all.
Seriously? This isn't complicated.
If you visit any video sharing site, you'll find countless amateur videos purporting to be evidence of those 'kinds of things'. Now ask yourself: "Why don't these videos constitute evidence?"
Got it? Great, let's take that and apply it to the statement in question:
You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.
Do you see the problem with that statement now?
This is what happens when people trust Randall Munroe to do their thinking for them. (See: xkcd 1235 for the origin of the parent's nonsense.)
You would think the modern age of cameras in everyone's phones would produce evidence-a-plenty of these kinds of things.
Think about that for a bit. Do you see the problem? If you're having trouble, check out a website called youtube.
8 years ago is 'rather recently'?
I'd change your emphasized "is" to a "was" or even a "was a long time ago".
Just to add: If you actually need something like C++, you should probably use C.
To the parent: Linus would like a word with you.
When you understand that, you'll be enlightened.
What are objects if not modules?
When you can answer that, you'll be on the path to enlightenment!
And surely one can have independent objects run in parallel.
This is just silly. I'm guessing you're joking here.
Yes. We took the time to learn the language first. We understand things like closures and anonymous functions and understand the value of prototype-based programming. We know how dynamic typing works because we're not morons. We know how 'this' works and understand that the language would be completely broken if it worked like you think it should.
Yeah, I'd call that a 'different mental space' from yours.
It has flaws, sure, but so does every other language. It's also an incredibly clever and well-designed language. You're obligated to learn it first, of course. I know the syntax looks familiar, but it's not Java or C.
I don't get it either. It seems to have an awful lot of trouble maintaining compatibility between minor versions.
Oh, and literals starting with "0" are interpreted as octal.
It's funny. I was actually quite grateful for this feature -- it came in quite handy on a personal project years ago.
I wouldn't be so quick to count it as a design flaw as lots of languages work that way. C/C++/Java/Python2/Ruby ... it's quite common.
The girl at the front desk doesn't need to know javascript either.
So... what was the point of your 'I don't need it' comment? It's not relevant to the 'ask Slashdot' question or the rest of the discussion.
If your host hasn't upgraded PHP in over a decade, it's time to find a new host.
Why do you want people to be woefully misinformed?
A couple points:
"class = function = object"
This is wrong. There are no classes. Yes, they are being introduced in ES6 -- which is sure to be remembered as the biggest mistake ever made, despite the fact that they're essentially sugar. Pretending to be 'like java' with constructor functions and new was obviously a huge mistake. Why double-down?
(To everyone else reading) They're quite controversial. Not only are they unnecessary, but they introduce unnecessary complexity -- with no obvious benefit to compensate. It's pretty well established that prototypal OO is superior to classical OO in every way. It's simpler, requiring users to understand fewer concepts and yet it's still far more 'powerful'. On 'powerful' I'll direct you elsewhere as I'm not interested in arguing this point with the kool-aid drinking OO zealots. Search for something like 'prototypes vs classes'. If you have it, put your ACM DL subscription to good use.
(While I'm complaining. Arrows? => Way to introduce inconsistency, ECMA! )
although most of "anyone" will probably write you a horrible kludgy mess instead
I'd say that this is true for every language. Never judge the quality of a language by the quality of the code you inherit. No language can encourage developers to write 'good' or 'bad' code.
That's the best you could you manage?
Hell, that's not even a problem with the language!
I'd call that a +5 funny ... but this is what many MENSA members actually believe.