Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #8692 > unrolled thread

Declarations (esp. of Globals)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-28 18:25 -0800
    Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> - 2011-11-29 03:39 +0000
      Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-11-29 13:28 +0100
        Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 15:39 +0000
          Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-29 12:17 -0800
            Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> - 2011-11-29 20:43 +0000
              Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-29 13:48 -0800
                Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> - 2011-11-29 22:11 +0000
                  Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-11-29 23:52 +0100
                  Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-29 15:11 -0800
                    Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 04:31 -0800
                      Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-30 14:18 -0800
                        Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 06:31 -0800
                    Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) "Tom de Neef" <tdeneef@qolor.nl> - 2011-12-01 11:34 +0100
                      Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-01 11:57 -0800
            Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-29 13:36 -0800
              Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-29 15:13 -0800
              Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-11-30 17:03 +0000
          Re: Declarations (esp. of Globals) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-11-29 23:42 +0100

#8692 — Declarations (esp. of Globals)

Dear JavaScripters:

     There is nothing quite like checking out someone else's code. "He
is doing it all wrong!" is a thought that can all-too-easily come to
mind or mouth.

     It is a bit awkward when looking at an identifier.  Is this thing
declared in this function/scope?  Is it a global?  Is it something
DOMy?

     I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8694

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in 
news:78g8d712uedb7c0ugjgpdrkeg8lnugta14@4ax.com:

>      I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
> everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?

I agree 100%. In the case of Javascript, even more so.

My coding philosophy is a bit different than most of the people here. I am 
a firm believer in learning "barely" enough. This gives me the time to 
learn barely enough about a much wider range of subjects than I could if I 
decided to become an expert at anything.

Thus please don't take my advice too seriously. If you want a good laugh, 
just take a look at my js libraries on my web-site. Yessir! I wrote my own.  
I would advertise them here if not for the fact that they are 100% perfect 
for my utilization and about 0% for everyone else.

-- 
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8700

Mike Duffy wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote […]:
>>      I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
>> everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?
> 
> I agree 100%. In the case of Javascript, even more so.

There is no "Javascript" [1].

However, in ECMAScript implementations like JavaScript, JScript, etc., 
variable declarations are important:

If you do not declare an identifier a variable, and assign to it, one of 
three things can happen: nothing (no effect at all, because an existing 
property was read-only), an exception is thrown (because an existing 
property could not be overwritten or created), or a property of the global 
object is being created or overwritten (sometimes called an "implied 
global").

With a variable declaration, the scope of a standalone identifier is clear.

That is why in ECMAScript Edition 5.x's Strict Mode¹, such an assignment, if 
the identifier cannot be resolved, always throws a ReferenceError exception.  
You can attempt to trigger Strict Mode with

  "use strict";

on top of the code or function body.

See also: <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Strict_mode>


PointedEars
___________
¹ not to be confused with layout engines' Standards (Compliance) Mode

[1] <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8702

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 at 13:28:40, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>Mike Duffy wrote:
>
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote […]:
>>>      I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
>>> everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?
                               ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I agree 100%. In the case of Javascript, even more so.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>There is no "Javascript" [1].
  <snip>

It's a typing error, or is that too inconvenient for you?.

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8706

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:39:36 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 at 13:28:40, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>Mike Duffy wrote:
>>
>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote […]:
>>>>      I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
>>>> everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I agree 100%. In the case of Javascript, even more so.
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>There is no "Javascript" [1].
>  <snip>
>
>It's a typing error, or is that too inconvenient for you?.

     OP here.  It might be inconvenient for him, but it is certainly
convenient for me.

     It is things like that that help a person who is new to a
newsgroup determine who gives good advice and who should be killfiled.
Mr. Lahn quickly establish himself in the second category.

     Squawking over missing a capital in "JavaScript" is rather
missing the point when done in a newsgroup called
"comp.lang.javascript".

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8707

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in 
news:16fad7p2vgnrgkopo6rltcup47cb6h83ss@4ax.com:


>      It is things like that that help a person who is new to a
> newsgroup determine who gives good advice and who should be killfiled.
> Mr. Lahn quickly establish himself in the second category.

Do not count him out too quickly. Many of the important things I have 
learned here have been authored by him. Some people here take themselves 
too seriously, but not anyone who calls himself "Pointed Ears". Take a good 
look at what he actually says. If you are beginner, a lot of the detail he 
usually goes into will probably not be interesting, but he does understand 
what he is talking about.

-- 
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8709

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:43:45 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in 
>news:16fad7p2vgnrgkopo6rltcup47cb6h83ss@4ax.com:

>>      It is things like that that help a person who is new to a
>> newsgroup determine who gives good advice and who should be killfiled.
>> Mr. Lahn quickly establish himself in the second category.
                             ^
     Edit: Add "ed".

>Do not count him out too quickly. Many of the important things I have 
>learned here have been authored by him. Some people here take themselves 
>too seriously, but not anyone who calls himself "Pointed Ears". Take a good 
>look at what he actually says. If you are beginner, a lot of the detail he 
>usually goes into will probably not be interesting, but he does understand 
>what he is talking about.

     Manner and manners count for a lot.  Some people lord their
knowledge over others, and one has to wade through their misemotional
data.  Others are more helpful.

     My killfile of Mr. Lahn is only mark read, so I still have the
messages should I ever need to refer to them.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8710

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in
news:ljkad7tncpg1sr2qck50rlfvr9045uqidf@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:43:45 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> wrote:
> 
>>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in 
>>news:16fad7p2vgnrgkopo6rltcup47cb6h83ss@4ax.com:
> 
>      Manner and manners count for a lot.  Some people lord their
> knowledge over others, and one has to wade through their misemotional
> data.  Others are more helpful.
> 
>      My killfile of Mr. Lahn is only mark read, so I still have the
> messages should I ever need to refer to them.

He is not too likely to help you out in the future now that he knows you 
will not be seeing any possible responses. But if you feel that you are not 
able to contenance his style, by all means you should killfile him.

I am curious though to know why you feel the need to tell him that you have 
done so. Thomas has never changed his style to suit the regulars, so it is 
very unlikely that he will do so for a newcomer.

-- 
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8712

Mike Duffy wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote […]:
>>      My killfile of Mr. Lahn is only mark read, so I still have the
>> messages should I ever need to refer to them.
> 
> He is not too likely to help you out in the future now that he knows you
> will not be seeing any possible responses. But if you feel that you are
> not able to contenance his style, by all means you should killfile him.
> 
> I am curious though to know why you feel the need to tell him that you
> have done so. Thomas has never changed his style to suit the regulars, so
> it is very unlikely that he will do so for a newcomer.

I had soft-killfiled him permanently already because of his clueless 
reaction, <news:p7h8b7pvi5ps283l3qmmrer1h4doilhknu@4ax.com>.  Apparently Mr. 
Wirchenko is confusing me with someone who could take a wannabe like him 
seriously (mind you, _not_ *newbie*), and he is delusional enough to think 
that I would *lose* something by not reading his FAQs.

(BTW, it's)

PointedEars  (F'up2 poster)
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8714

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
<Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in
>news:ljkad7tncpg1sr2qck50rlfvr9045uqidf@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:43:45 +0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy
>> <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> wrote:
>> 
>>>Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote in 
>>>news:16fad7p2vgnrgkopo6rltcup47cb6h83ss@4ax.com:
>> 
>>      Manner and manners count for a lot.  Some people lord their
>> knowledge over others, and one has to wade through their misemotional
>> data.  Others are more helpful.
>> 
>>      My killfile of Mr. Lahn is only mark read, so I still have the
>> messages should I ever need to refer to them.
>
>He is not too likely to help you out in the future now that he knows you 
>will not be seeing any possible responses. But if you feel that you are not 
>able to contenance his style, by all means you should killfile him.
>
>I am curious though to know why you feel the need to tell him that you have 
>done so. Thomas has never changed his style to suit the regulars, so it is 
>very unlikely that he will do so for a newcomer.

     Maybe, the regulars have gotten used to it -- "Grin and bear it."
-- but maybe, my post will result in him reconsidering his manner.

     Since his posts do not appear useful, I would rather that he not
reply to my posts.  I have seen the phenomenon of a thread getting
hijacked by other discussion and the original question never being
answered.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8724

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> I have seen the phenomenon of a thread getting hijacked by other
> discussion and the original question never being answered.

That's very common on USENET, but does seem more prevalent here.  As
long as people don't mistake this discussion group for a (paid?) help
forum, we're fine.  Many of the most interesting discussions start as
asides to existing threads.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8728

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:31:39 -0800 (PST), Scott Sauyet
<scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> I have seen the phenomenon of a thread getting hijacked by other
>> discussion and the original question never being answered.
>
>That's very common on USENET, but does seem more prevalent here.  As
>long as people don't mistake this discussion group for a (paid?) help
>forum, we're fine.  Many of the most interesting discussions start as
>asides to existing threads.

     That might well be, but I have had the situation of needing an
answer to my question, never getting anything, and yet there is a long
thread.  I think that other people then tend to think that the
question has been answered.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8745

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:31:39 -0800 (PST), Scott Sauyet
> <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>> I have seen the phenomenon of a thread getting hijacked by other
>>> discussion and the original question never being answered.
>
>> That's very common on USENET, but does seem more prevalent here.  As
>> long as people don't mistake this discussion group for a (paid?) help
>> forum, we're fine.  Many of the most interesting discussions start as
>> asides to existing threads.
>
>      That might well be, but I have had the situation of needing an
> answer to my question, never getting anything, and yet there is a long
> thread.  I think that other people then tend to think that the
> question has been answered.

Again, that's very common.  Feel free to restate the question, in the
same thread or another.  But remember that many users are here for the
discussions and very few are here specifically to try to answer your
questions.  If you make the question interesting enough, you'll
probably get a number of answers.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8736

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@ocis.net>
>
>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...

You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the 
start.
I suggest you focus on content rather than style.

Tom 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8752

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:34:13 +0100, "Tom de Neef" <tdeneef@qolor.nl>
wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@ocis.net>
>>
>>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
>
>You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the 
>start.
>I suggest you focus on content rather than style.

     No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
in a readable, helpful style.  Of those, it is almost certain that
some will post correct information.  Because their style is readable,
it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.

     Or I could try deciphering posts written by people who are
antagonistic or have axes to grind.

     No, I think I will continue with the first way.

     Thank you to all of you who have posted helpfully.  I like your
style!

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8708

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>      Squawking over missing a capital in "JavaScript" is rather
> missing the point when done in a newsgroup called
> "comp.lang.javascript".

The point is not that the capital is missing.  The point is that
unlike with Ruby, C++, Java, and many other languages, there are a
number of different implementations of ECMAScript with sometimes quite
incompatible behavior.  When speaking of "Javascript", it sounds as
though one is speaking of the Mozilla implementation, "JavaScript",
but usually it turns out that it is some abstract common subset of
these implementations that is meant.

Personally, I don't have any issue with the use of "Javascript" as a
shorthand for an abstract ECMAScript implementation.  If one
implementation is being described, it's usually easy enough to make
clear.  For the same reason, I use "LISP" for a number of languages
which differ IMHO quite a bit more than do the popular ECMAScript
implementations.  If I want to distinguish Allegro CL, I simply say
so.

Thomas Lahn often makes a point of noting this distinction, often
rather brusquely.  It seems to me mostly pedantry, but it's probably
good to have pedants among us.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8715

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:36:49 -0800 (PST), Scott Sauyet
<scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Thomas Lahn often makes a point of noting this distinction, often
>rather brusquely.  It seems to me mostly pedantry, but it's probably
>good to have pedants among us.

     Yes, brusquely.  I have also seen it done and the question not
answered.  I can be pedantic myself.  Pedants can be fine, but there
is a glut of rude pedants.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8727

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 at 13:36:49, in comp.lang.javascript, Scott Sauyet 
wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>      Squawking over missing a capital in "JavaScript" is rather
>> missing the point when done in a newsgroup called
>> "comp.lang.javascript".
>
>The point is not that the capital is missing.  The point is that
>unlike with Ruby, C++, Java, and many other languages, there are a
>number of different implementations of ECMAScript with sometimes quite
>incompatible behavior.  When speaking of "Javascript", it sounds as
>though one is speaking of the Mozilla implementation, "JavaScript",
>but usually it turns out that it is some abstract common subset of
>these implementations that is meant.
>
>Personally, I don't have any issue with the use of "Javascript" as a
>shorthand for an abstract ECMAScript implementation.  If one
>implementation is being described, it's usually easy enough to make
>clear.  For the same reason, I use "LISP" for a number of languages
>which differ IMHO quite a bit more than do the popular ECMAScript
>implementations.  If I want to distinguish Allegro CL, I simply say
>so.
>
>Thomas Lahn often makes a point of noting this distinction, often
>rather brusquely.  It seems to me mostly pedantry, but it's probably
>good to have pedants among us.

It's worse than pedantry. He flatly refuses to agree that a simple name 
covering all variants would be useful. (In the same way that 'vehicle' 
covers cars, lorries, motorbikes, etc (1)).

He will only agree to a multi-word sentence that excludes some of the 
languages that are On Topic for this news group. (Exclusion justified on 
the grounds that he doesn't want to discuss them).

   John


(1) Though whether something on wheels aiming to go at Mach 1.3 should 
be included is debatable.
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8711

John G Harris wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mike Duffy wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote […]:
>>>>      I am a stickler for declarations and prefer to declare
>>>> everything.  As applied to JavaScript, what say you?  And why?
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I agree 100%. In the case of Javascript, even more so.
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> There is no "Javascript" [1].
>   <snip>
> 
> It's a typing error, […]

Unfortunately, much too often it is evidence of a serious but common 
misconception.  Hence my remark.


PointedEqars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web