Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!news4.open-news-network.org!.POSTED.home.meteotest.ch!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Firefox changed IFRAME behaviour - I need a remedy?? Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 01:42:42 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 96 Message-ID: <2255007.fJ7HjIvnrp@PointedEars.de> References: <593a3b98-6915-4561-b4df-0b096d1cdd56@googlegroups.com> <0d372bee-66f1-4aa6-9b15-2b802c70c1a6@googlegroups.com> <4a0f55db-a21c-4fb1-aec3-e678e40b41e0@googlegroups.com> <1783375.m5R59jPM9B@PointedEars.de> <4d37f8fe-1e46-4eac-8e1b-df9756377688@googlegroups.com> <1676946.idUJCsOoGn@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Injection-Info: news4.open-news-network.org; posting-host="home.meteotest.ch:178.22.109.226"; logging-data="31107"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@exeter.123backup.de" User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10 X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 6:48:40 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: >> > No. By "sufficient" I mean expressive enough to represent and enforce >> > the semantic meaning of what the notation represents. Example: >> > >> > var imgBird; >> > >> > vs. >> > >> > var bird: Image; >> >> But that is merely your *opinion*. Apparently more people think that the >> current ECMAScript type system is sufficient than not, either because >> they do not care; because they are using ECMAScript implementations like >> Dart, TypeScript, and Flow that have static type-checking natively; or >> because they use precompilers or some other way to enforce types. > > It is less of an opinion than you think. It is more of an opinion than *you* think. > You've even admitted so without > realizing it: > > 1. You can't make a claim about sufficiency either way if you don't care > about using a proper level of abstraction. I could name every variable > with a single letter and get by. For example, look at Mentifakes code. > This is a non-argument. Fallacy: Slippery slope. > 2. If you're using a superset or an alternative language for your medium > of expression then you've admitted an insufficiency. Fallacy: Affirming the antecedent. > Either your language can represent and enforce your domain or discourse, > or it can't. Fallacy: False dilemma. > Also, since when is Dart an ECMAScript implementation? Apparently it is not, and the author of the cited article has confused the fact that it is also an Ecma standard with the idea that it were also an ECMAScript implementation. >> And the JavaScripts (sic) are not alone in this approach of *dynamic* >> type-checking, and *implicit* type conversion. Example: Python. >> >> It is a matter of approach, not an objective measure of sufficiency. > > You're making an orthogonal argument. Not at all. > Type conversion and dynamic checking is irrelevant. No, it is not. First of all, I said “*implicit* type conversion”; and second, in many cases these two features *are* sufficient to implement an algorithm. > You have information encoded inside of a variable name. In a well-written program you have *always* information “encoded [_in_] […] a variable [_identifier_]”. That is the *purpose* of a variable identifier. And Hungarian notation was *your* idea as the *only* alternative to static type-checking. It is not. > This is the same smell as using Stringly Typed programming: The meaning of > the program is not part of the program. That is another fallacy. This time I leave it to you to find out the type. >> > JavaScript still lacks any meaningful syntactic means of such >> > representation. There not even anything significant on the road map[1]. >> That depends on what you consider “JavaScript” to be, but it is mostly >> true. > > I'm referring to "JavaScript" primarily as ES3 -> ES2019 and the common > implementations thereof without extensions. That is much too broad a statement, then. -- PointedEars FAQ: | | Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.