Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Parsing javascript file off the main thread Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:26:36 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 37 Message-ID: <10043161.f3KcPn1T7V@PointedEars.de> References: <10696621.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> <23a00dcf-edc4-4a6e-bf37-8143057b7fef@googlegroups.com> <5204472.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> <2533447.e9J7NaK4W3@PointedEars.de> <37d668a8-cf34-4c5f-9ca1-a463ac5e496d@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1474399598 26386 eJwNycEBwCAIA8CVRAjScQDJ/iPY+x7UxfuYww0EuyZ5l0Ygr/qf1JAv+uxJw8XM7qBIVS46Hyv7EcQ= (20 Sep 2016 19:26:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:26:38 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:XEuP6QWZwO4tj2koI/fqQTT63pw= X-User-ID: eJwNx8kBAEEEBMCUaLQRzhzkH8Ju/SqMypvOoMfErEy0QSw3/J5hDZouZofUcqjRVA5ro+Hb/9ynshbqSdsHGxETzA== X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLA8JTObQQ/xJ25xYSLxEecDpZb/S0JKpVanSthDnnfqvIRXsQazf8NYc/HnYRnQ== Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:31419 [I am not going to follow-up on your follow-up to my superseded posting. Please use a newsreader that observes NNTP.] Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> (JFYI: Posting a URI without further comment is _not_ to “present [one’s] >> reasoning”.) > > Just a reminder, you snipped my justification in your earlier response. There was no justification. You wrote, what I did not quote because I found it irrelevant to the question at hand: | His script is inline within the src attribute and right before the | tag. How is async or defer going to change the semantics here? > The referenced link looks to me to be aligned with my reasoning. You have not presented your reasoning so far. Instead you have tried to shift the burden of proof by asking (me) a question in return. Therefore, whether the “referenced link” (you mean the referenced/linked _resource_ instead) is *actually* *objectively* aligned with your reasoning or only seems to be so *to you* (“looks to me”) remains unknown. Proper reasoning would go along the lines, “these are the $FACTS of the situation, and from $STATEMENT(S) in $RESOURCE (I think that) it follows, given these $FACTS, that …”. Only from that a constructive discussion could ensue. HTH -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.