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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22810

Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?

Show key headers only | View raw

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> > The issue with the DOM forcing you into Immediate Mode whereas a
>>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Retained Mode is more appropriate in many situations.
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I am not aware of the DOM forcing me into anything.  Please define those
>> terms you just invented.
> 
> If you think I just invented the terms, I'm disappointed.
> 
>> > Hence the are countless articles on how avoid repaint/reflow through
>> > manipulation of JavaScript objects creating a facsimile of the
>> > document and/or divorced fragments which are then "committed" for
>> > display after manipulation.
>> 
>> It appears to be easy to avoid repaint/reflow: First build the subtree in
>> memory, then append it.
> 
> I wouldn't claim "easy" if there are numerous articles on it

The number of articles on a subject is not sufficient evidence of anything 
regarding the subject, but of the need of their authors to express 
themselves.

>> Which facsimiles are you talking about?
> 
> You already have it in mind,

Oh, you can read my mind now?  I am impressed :->

> the details are on how this happens to be accomplished.
> 
>> Please elaborate.
> 
> I don't think I should bother as I suspect you are more interested in
> having an argument itself than arriving at a conclusion. I'm definitely
> not in the mood for such a waste of time.

I think if you had any sound arguments instead of just buzzwords seemingly 
randomly strewn on top of your arguments, you would at least try to answer 
my questions and requests instead of falling back on the /ad hominem/ 
argument.  So you do not appear to be at least in the right mood *for a 
constructive discussion*, which is unfortunate.
 
>> >> > 5. A lack of necessary APIs
>> >> As the DOM *is* an API, you must mean its (API) _features_.  Such as?
>> > As listed here: <http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/>
>> How does this status document substantiate your argument?
> 
> The fact that there is effort in creating new APIs demonstrates that what
> has traditionally been provided is insufficient, and yes: API is being
> used in plural.

Your logic is flawed.  The fact that new APIs are being built on the core 
DOM right now is neither indication nor evidence that it is or has been 
lacking necessary APIs; but that it is flexible enough to allow them now 
that technology has evolved enough so that they are considered necessary.
  
>> >> > 3. non-idiomatic usage
>> >> 
>> >> Such as?
>> > 
>> > While the other points are a repeat of arguments I've seen/heard,
>> > this particular point is my opinion. The DOM is a leaky paradigm
>>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > that wants an Object-Oriented, imperative use. Since JavaScript
>> > is not strongly in those camps,
>> 
>> Am I to understand that you think JavaScript is not strong with regard to
>> object-oriented, imperative use?  If yes, how did you get that idea? 
>> With regard to programming paradigms, JavaScript is an object-oriented,
>> procedural-imperative programming language, is it not?
> 
> I'm referring to the fact it isn't _ONLY_ that paradigm (I used the
> qualifier "strongly" for a reason).

ACK.  I was not familiar with the expression and had assumed that this was 
some sort of typo.

> Stop trying to be contrary for its own sake.

You do know that English is not my native language, don't you?

Anyhow, even with your clarification I cannot find yours to be a sound 
argument.  Yes, JavaScript™ and all other ECMAScript implementations support 
the procedural-imperative, the object-oriented, and the functional 
programming paradigms.  Obviously it supports the paradigm that is suggested 
(but not required) by the W3C DOM.  How does that make it/them less suitable 
for using its features?

ISTM you have it backwards.  All current DOM implementations *originate* 
from JavaScript™ (versions 1.0 through 1.3), through the W3C DOM; not vice-
versa.  And there are ECMAScript Language Bindings *specified* for W3C DOM 
interfaces.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

Thread

Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 02:37 -0800
  Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 11:52 +0100
    Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 12:04 -0800
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 22:24 +0100
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 14:49 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-27 02:14 +0100
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 18:30 -0800
              Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 19:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 19:50 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 21:18 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 22:27 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 23:23 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:12 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 22:30 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:35 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:59 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:52 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-02-02 10:09 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-04 23:42 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:40 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:17 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:51 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-31 01:06 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:36 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:47 +0100
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-27 14:36 +0000
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 16:05 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-29 15:26 +0000
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:44 -0800
              "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 11:10 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-01-30 10:38 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 13:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 12:45 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:05 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-31 21:32 +0000
                OT: "impedance mismatch" (was: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-01 02:40 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 10:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:54 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "ViLco" <villiber@tin.it> - 2014-01-30 16:24 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 00:35 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:16 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 15:14 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 00:56 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 22:13 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:51 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <J.R.Stockton@physics.org> - 2014-01-31 19:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-02 17:44 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 15:36 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 17:59 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 17:18 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 19:47 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-04 10:33 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-06 13:40 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-06 10:12 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-07 10:32 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-08 23:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-09 10:33 +0100

csiph-web