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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13676

Re: Javascript Math problem

Followups directed to: comp.lang.javascript

Show key headers only | View raw

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> On 2012-04-28 13:04, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-28 02:30, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>>> Simple enough for the mathematically inclined:
>>>> 
>>>> function f(n){ return (n-(n%3))/3 }
>>> 
>>> In JS, -5.5 % 3 is -2.5 ...
>> 
>> You mean _in conforming implementations of ECMAScript_, of course.
> 
> No, Thomas, I don't. Anywhere else, I would have written "JavaScript"
> and people would automatically understand it as a pars pro toto.

No, as you would not have bothered to define the term before using it (the 
same as you have not bothered to define "JS"), they too would have acquired 
or seen confirmed their common misconception that there was only one 
programming language that was implemented everywhere.  As a result, they 
would not care about the implementations of ECMAScript, and their 
differences.  Instead they would begin or continue to ascribe well-specified 
differences and the differences that must follow from ECMAScript 
implementations being only the interface languages to APIs like the DOM to 
"JavaScript bugs".

> Only in this group do I write "JS", because up until now, this has spared
> me your there-is-no-javascript replies, which I find incredibly tedious.

Your mistakes are your problems alone.

> You are the only person who ever complains about others using
> "JavaScript", "Javascript", "javascript", or "JS".

No, I am pointing out that this is imprecise, ambiguous, and potentially 
confusing terminology that does not do this topic justice.  I have also 
showed repeatedly and I will continue to show why that is the case.  You 
just have to pay more attention to that.

> It would be nice if you could get it into your head that people need a
> catch-all term for this language and its variants.

Since JavaScript 1.0 and JScript 1.1 can be considered obsolete, the catch-
all term for the rest of discussions is there: ECMAScript implementations.  
It is what the Specification says (in all its Editions), so it describes 
these programming languages best.  It shows where they are *really* coming 
from (JavaScript was the first, but not the only one; JavaScript has evolved 
in the meantime, while other implementations have not as much) and it avoids 
implying the fallacy that these languages are identical or almost identical.  
Because they are _not_.

> When there's a relevant distinction to be made between engines, dialects,
> or versions, we'll mention it.

There are no dialects; that is just another form of the same fallacy.  There 
are different implementations of a rather loose standard for an extensible 
programming language that differ from one another in more than one respect.  
The best way to refer to a specific implementation is to use its name, like 
JavaScript, JScript and so on.  In any other case, it is best to not use 
their names in whatever similar spelling or abbreviation, to avoid the 
ambiguity, which is bound to cause misunderstandings among and create 
misconceptions especially on part of the uninitiated, but certainly the 
casual reader.

> I'm certainly not going to write "conforming implementations of
> ECMAScript" every time.

You do not have to.  "ECMAScript implementations" usually suffices in a 
general discussion.

> If you have a better suggestion, please let us hear it.

Apparently you are thinking that by using the royal "we" you would be more 
right or have more rights than if you had just used "I".  You should know 
that this is a common fallacy (argumentum ad populum).  Keep in mind that 
wise thought by Bertrand Russell that even if all agree – as construed by 
you, which is not necessarily the case – all can still be wrong.  And in 
this case, though it may be still ignored by many, it has been showed 
already.  It will be showed again.

> If you don't, please accept what has become general usage. You're fighting
> against windmills here.

Your analogy is flawed.  That the majority of people do not know or care 
about semantics is not a good reason for the literate to abandon it.  That 
the majority of people do not know what they are doing is not a good reason 
for the knowledgable to give in to a trend of oversimplification.  Indeed, 
it is especially their respective duty to uphold the long sought and fought 
for standards of (technical) discussion so that the world is not going to 
end in meaningless babble.

No, we are _not_ discussing "javascript" here; we are discussing ECMAScript 
implementations and applications thereof.  And, by contrast, *that* "we" 
*does* include all active participants, whether they already know it or not.


PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 15:41 -0700
  Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 01:33 +0200
    Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 18:02 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1217@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-29 21:07 +0100
      Re: Javascript Math problem "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-30 08:06 +0000
        Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-30 01:33 -0700
        Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1218@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-05-01 19:30 +0100
  Re: Javascript Math problem "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2012-04-27 17:30 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Tom <thart@vicon.net> - 2012-04-27 18:05 -0700
    Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 04:00 +0200
      Re: Javascript Math problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 13:04 +0200
        Re: Javascript Math problem Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 21:10 +0200
          Re: Javascript Math problem Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-28 22:23 +0200
            Re: Javascript Math problem "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-04-28 23:39 +0300
            JS/Terminology (was: Javascript Math problem) Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 05:59 +0200
              Re: JS/Terminology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-29 16:15 +0200
                Re: JS/Terminology Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-29 16:20 +0200
                Re: JS/Terminology Puzzled <scratching.head@example.com> - 2012-05-07 16:22 -0400
                Re: JS/Terminology Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 14:36 -0700
                Re: JS/Terminology "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-05-08 08:40 +0000
                Re: JS/Terminology Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-08 09:29 -0700
            Re: Javascript Math problem John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-29 17:30 +0100
          Re: Javascript Math problem Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
            Re: Javascript Math problem Dr J R Stockton <reply1218@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-05-01 19:48 +0100
              Re: Javascript Math problem Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:30 -0700
      Re: Javascript Math problem "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-04-28 09:00 -0600
    Re: Javascript Math problem "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-28 09:02 +0000

csiph-web