Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Give alert if form checkbox array is empty Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 04:55:44 +0100 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 60 Message-ID: <4538696.GNafaxuCcu@PointedEars.de> References: <1851504.v7CTRd67sv@PointedEars.de> <6772cf1e-3a97-4a4c-9f18-72064d765eac@googlegroups.com> <3172174.YdVlHmXemb@PointedEars.de> <66bc51ad-b82b-4532-b775-884ef24e695b@googlegroups.com> <1824638.KBAKRzmleq@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1454126145 2307 eJwVxskRwDAIBLCWlsCCKSfh6L8ET/QS1cUrzOnG5U7/fQedFYJB4IRDj2ELKVmt+zG0rYWPXhGMEG8= (30 Jan 2016 03:55:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 03:55:45 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 X-User-ID: eJwNyMEBwCAIA8CVCkIk45SI+4/Q3vNywaAdSETevHNJlDXESLfe3YdviX9g6nUhZvnw4FnHsrcEbxaoAf0DWq4VkA== Cancel-Lock: sha1:zfRtbwHaz1I/tXVYq8s1r/cUjH0= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXqEiZ5yDY/09YEk6wczO4Q6EjFdVg5cXY4IhuDWvp8+iqWHcSr2bP0/oBNdYSQw== Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:29501 Scott Sauyet wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Keep in mind that the built-in implementation of an algorithm is >>>>>> naturally always the most efficient one to use as it is, at best, >>>>>> provided in machine code already. >>>>> Proof by statement. >>>> I have already explained why. It is not my problem if you are not >>>> paying attention and can only come up with apples vs. oranges. >>> Your opinion is *not* evidence. >> It is not an opinion. > > And in a recent post (<3460364.F9DqHdneDT@PointedEars.de>), > > Thomas 'Pointed Ears' Lahn wrote: > | Scott Sauyet wrote: > > |> Not at all. Perhaps the author of the code in question is simply a > |> better developer than the one who wrote that part of the script engine. > | > | It would seem that your hubris knows no end. > > So in the world of Thomas Lahn, my suggestion that there are developers > out there who might write better code than those who happened to write > a specific portion of a browser engine is unremitting hubris, but his > blunt, as of yet unsupported, assertion that the most efficient > implementation of an algorithm is necessarily the built-in one, is not > mere opinion. We are talking about *scripting* languages and *script* engines here. AISB, *there*, the most efficient implementation of an algorithm – that is, of the *same* algorithm – is *necessarily* the built-in one because if you implement that algorithm – again, the *same* algorithm – by yourself *in a scripting language*, your code has to be parsed and compiled first, and only *then* the resulting bytecode or machine code is executed by the (virtual) machine, while the built-in code is compiled already and can be executed *directly*. Also, the built-in code is in several important cases written in such a way that it makes the best use of available memory (AISB, it is logical to assume that script engine developers know what they are doing and do not intentionally leave memory leaks; assuming otherwise, i.e. that script engine performance would have a trend to get worse with time and such a script engine would *still* prevail to be available for execution, is nonsense), while that is not true of script code (one relies on garbage collection there and has _not_ full control of memory usage). We are not talking about milliseconds and kibibytes in specific script engines here, but of *overall*, *general* performance. I am sorry that you cannot see that 1 + 1 > 1 truly is self-evident and not an opinion. -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.