Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!217.188.199.168.MISMATCH!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <4006284.34SQex3vo1@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:08:36 +0100
User-Agent: KNode/4.11.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
Face: 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
Subject: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <DOM-20140126091248@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <1fe2e508-cfc8-4933-997b-9bb462a2a593@googlegroups.com> <4250784.k5hfLq1mn1@PointedEars.de> <b11baec5-d510-477c-8ebc-6e155f05139f@googlegroups.com> <2748480.FELbIWn90F@PointedEars.de> <ea16c28b-9b88-494d-b45e-a7db01ec2124@googlegroups.com> <2158405.4KzAjcCDC7@PointedEars.de> <ab53ee9e-5ef5-4943-bfc5-ebc05407dc19@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jan 2014 19:08:50 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9530f833.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=FZ<gLCLhDI]V;Ef1`Jk54\ic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQnkgeX?EC@@P\BGGOn[Md>XDZm8W4\YJN\YUVHKH;GI^WA:4gUTI10KQhadMDc@f1HP
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:22851

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> [fallacies]
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Regardless of what the origin was, the evolution has been divergent
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (though there has been efforts to improve this lately).
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What are you talking about?

> The very fact that the term "interface" is used should be enough of a
> starting clue of the mismatch.

Again, why? 

1. DOMs are specified using *interfaces* that are to be *implemented*.

2. Interfaces are a concept of, and are intended for use in,
   *object-oriented programming languages*.

3. ECMAScript *implementations* *are* object-oriented programming languages.

Where is the mismatch?

> Have the old arguments and discussions been
> forgotten/overlooked? Is this mismatch honestly news here? Even an
> off-the-cuff search will yield examples and arguments not yet mentioned:
> 
> <http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/SPLASH-2011-Dave-Thomas-On-Modern-Application-Development#time=12m14s>
> 
> <http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/#what_went_wrong>
> 
> <http://www.artima.com/intv/domP.html>

Throwing a bunch of URIs at people is no substitute for a sound argument.
 
> ...and plenty of others if one is interested enough to bother looking.
> Break out the bubble pl0x. The insularity is chafing
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here we go again.

-- 
PointedEars

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