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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33986 > unrolled thread

javascript

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  javascript Yogesh Sati <yogeshsati537@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 06:35 -0700
    Re: javascript Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> - 2016-03-16 09:49 -0400
      Re: javascript Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> - 2016-03-16 10:51 -0400
        Re: javascript Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> - 2016-03-16 11:43 -0400
          Re: javascript Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:16 -0700
        Re: javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-03-16 20:26 -0400
      Re: javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0400
        Re: javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-03-16 21:28 -0400
          Re: javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-03-16 22:00 -0400
            Re: javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-03-16 22:03 -0400

#33986 — javascript

check it for javascripting videos:-
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr79diu_jJu_96knZJIWC6Q

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33988

On 3/16/2016 9:35 AM, Yogesh Sati wrote:
> check it for javascripting videos:-
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr79diu_jJu_96knZJIWC6Q
>
Despite the similarity of names, Java and Javascript are entirely 
different languages and have nothing to do with one another.

It's like me assuming you are a Yogi because your first name is Yogesh.

-- 
Rhino

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

#33990

On 3/16/2016 10:14 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>> Despite the similarity of names, Java and Javascript are entirely
>> different languages and have nothing to do with one another.
>
>    When Brendan Eich designed JavaScript, he was told by his
>    superiors that the language must »look like Java«.
>
>    Every instance of Java SE contains a JavaScript interpreter,
>    this means, Java can be scripted with JavaScript.
>
>    Java and JavaScript are trademarks both owned by the same
>    company.
>
>    This is a valid Java statement in Java SE:
>
> if( "x" instanceof String )Math.exp( 2 );
>
>    This is a valid JavaScript statement in Firefox:
>
> if( "x" instanceof String )Math.exp( 2 );
>
>    What is the meaning of »x has nothing to do with y«?
>
Would you agree with me that posts about JavaScript are off-topic in 
this newsgroup?

That's all I was trying to say. Many people mix the two up, particularly 
if they have never written code in either language. I assume the OP has 
made the same mistake and was trying to tell him so.

How would you have said it?


-- 
Rhino

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

#33992

On 3/16/2016 10:58 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>> Would you agree with me that posts about JavaScript are off-topic in
>> this newsgroup?
>
>    In Java SE, we can write:
>
> ScriptEngine engine = new ScriptEngineManager().getEngineByName("nashorn");
> engine.eval("print('Hello World!');");
>
>    , so questions about JavaScript could be interpreted as
>    questions about the »eval« method of Java SE's »ScriptEngine« object.
>
>    After all, we also discuss regular expressions in this
>    newsgroup because they can be used in Java SE code, even
>    though regular expressions are a language different from Java.
>
>> How would you have said it?
>
>    I have made the decision to try to ignore advertisements for
>    blogs in this newsgroup and not directly to reply to them.
>
Okay, I'll just stay out of it the next time someone tries to post 
anything about JavaScript.

-- 
Rhino

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

#33993

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 11:44:18 AM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
> Okay, I'll just stay out of it the next time someone tries to post 
> anything about JavaScript.
> 
> -- 
> Rhino

That was my thought, ignore the spammer.  You want to whack someone on their virtual head for a post like this, particularly the second post which showed as an unrelated response to a discussion, but the spammer likely wouldn't even see your response or wouldn't care.

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

#34000

On 3/16/2016 10:58 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>> Would you agree with me that posts about JavaScript are off-topic in
>> this newsgroup?
>
>    In Java SE, we can write:
>
> ScriptEngine engine = new ScriptEngineManager().getEngineByName("nashorn");
> engine.eval("print('Hello World!');");
>
>    , so questions about JavaScript could be interpreted as
>    questions about the »eval« method of Java SE's »ScriptEngine« object.

Bullshit.

Only questions the Java context and the interaction between
Java and JavaScript would be on topic.

A question only about JavaScript would be off-topic.

The fact that it can be run from Java does not make it on topic.

You can also run a COBOL program from Java via Runtime.exec (or
ProcessBuilder).

But only questions about the Java code and how to manage
input and output would be on topic.

Question only about COBOL would be off-topic.

>    After all, we also discuss regular expressions in this
>    newsgroup because they can be used in Java SE code, even
>    though regular expressions are a language different from Java.

Do we?

I would expect RE questions here to include significant more
Java code than RE "code".

A RE question without any Java involvement would certainly be
off topic.

>> How would you have said it?
>
>    I have made the decision to try to ignore advertisements for
>    blogs in this newsgroup and not directly to reply to them.

Well that part I agree with.

Arne

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

#34001

On 3/16/2016 10:14 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>> Despite the similarity of names, Java and Javascript are entirely
>> different languages and have nothing to do with one another.
>
>    When Brendan Eich designed JavaScript, he was told by his
>    superiors that the language must »look like Java«.
>
>    Every instance of Java SE contains a JavaScript interpreter,
>    this means, Java can be scripted with JavaScript.
>
>    Java and JavaScript are trademarks both owned by the same
>    company.
>
>    This is a valid Java statement in Java SE:
>
> if( "x" instanceof String )Math.exp( 2 );
>
>    This is a valid JavaScript statement in Firefox:
>
> if( "x" instanceof String )Math.exp( 2 );
>
>    What is the meaning of »x has nothing to do with y«?

That they are distinct within their domain.

The Java language and the Java language are distinct from each
other.

Different syntax. Different semantics. Different tools. Different
standardization and vendor context. Mostly different usage.

Obviously they share some things. But most programming languages
share concepts with other programming languages. Good features
(and occasionally not so good features) get copied.

I am sure that Gosling must have talked about C++ as influencing
Java (at least on what not to include).

for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)

is valid in both Java and C++.

James Gosling and Bjarne Stroustrup both have beards, wear glasses
and live in the US.

But Java and C++ are still completely different languages.

Arne

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

#34004

On 3/16/2016 8:47 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 3/16/2016 10:14 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> What is the meaning of »x has nothing to do with y«?
>> That they are distinct within their domain.
>
>    My dictionary says:
>
> have to do with
> 1. to be related to or connected with
> 2. to be associated with; deal with
>
>    . So, the negation would be »not related«.
>
>    »Distinct« is much weaker than »not related<<, since
>    nearly /all/ things that are related still are distict.

I think the terms may have slightly different meaning in general
English and in a usenet discussion about what is on topic and what
is not.

>> The Java language and the Java language are distinct from each
>> other.
>
>    So is the Java language of the JLS1 and of the JLS8.

I lost a "Script" in that sentence.

Arne

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

#34007

On 3/16/2016 9:39 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 3/16/2016 8:47 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>> On 3/16/2016 10:14 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>> What is the meaning of »x has nothing to do with y«?
>>>> That they are distinct within their domain.
>>> My dictionary says:
>>> have to do with
>>> 1. to be related to or connected with
>>> 2. to be associated with; deal with
>>> . So, the negation would be »not related«.
>>> »Distinct« is much weaker than »not related<<, since
>>> nearly /all/ things that are related still are distict.
>> I think the terms may have slightly different meaning in general
>> English and in a usenet discussion about what is on topic and what
>> is not.
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

I think you will find that an attempt to always interpret
words in a technical usenet group based on general English
meaning would frequently result in total nonsense.

Arne

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

#34008

On 3/16/2016 10:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 9:39 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> On 3/16/2016 8:47 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>> On 3/16/2016 10:14 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>>> What is the meaning of »x has nothing to do with y«?
>>>>> That they are distinct within their domain.
>>>> My dictionary says:
>>>> have to do with
>>>> 1. to be related to or connected with
>>>> 2. to be associated with; deal with
>>>> . So, the negation would be »not related«.
>>>> »Distinct« is much weaker than »not related<<, since
>>>> nearly /all/ things that are related still are distict.
>>> I think the terms may have slightly different meaning in general
>>> English and in a usenet discussion about what is on topic and what
>>> is not.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
>
> I think you will find that an attempt to always interpret
> words in a technical usenet group based on general English
> meaning would frequently result in total nonsense.

For starters then everybody knows that Java means coffee.

:-)

Would it be special pleading to assume that Java here would
be the programming language and not the more general usage of
coffee?

I don't think so.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web