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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:56:01 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 105 Message-ID: <2492403.mvXUDI8C0e@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> <2255007.fJ7HjIvnrp@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="3247"; 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 Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 6:42:49 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: >> > 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. > > Missapplied categorization. > > You've defined "sufficient" as a function of not caring or as a property > of some alternative language. This is not even wrong [1] Nonsense. What is deemed “sufficient” obviously means different things for different people. >> > 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. > > Modus Ponens is an inference rule, not a fallacy. You stated the > proposition, I stated the implication. This was not /modus ponens/. >> > Either your language can represent and enforce your domain or >> > discourse, or it can't. >> Fallacy: False dilemma. > > You can't be half pregnant nor half stupid. If you think this is not a > binary choice, present another. Something can be satisfactory or sufficient (the two words are synonymous) in one aspect, but not in another; and it is also possible that it can be that for one person, but not another. >> > 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 you did not do your due diligence before using it as reference. I said “apparently”. > Given your anal-retentiveness on the topic In addition to that I take exception to your characterization, I strongly recommend that you update your knowledge about psychology. >> > 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. > > This is still irrelevant to the topic of Hungarian Notation. A solution that *you* introduced to the discussion. There is no requirement for Hungarian notation. > An algorithm has nothing to do with it, Yes, it does. > and a type system is also directly irrelevant to that. No, it is not. In fact, there is a greater variety of algorithms that can be implemented, and a greater flexibility and ease in implementing algorithms, if the implementation is not required to satisfy a more rigid type system. That is one reason why, for example, C++ introduced template classes, why J2SE 5.0+ finally has generics, and why they were added to C# and VB .NET a year later. >> > 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. > > Bonus points for misunderstanding Hungarian Notation and the point I made. Unfortunately, it turns out that your introduction of Hungarian notation into the discussion was basically a red herring to push your false dichotomy down people’s throats. And I do not bite. > [tl;dr] -- PointedEars FAQ: | | Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.