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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #24788

Re: "i = i|0"

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/12/2014 02:01 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [F'up2 comp.lang.javascript]
> 
> James Kuyper wrote in comp.lang.c:
...
>> Where does this "We" come from? You are, of course, free to discuss
>> anything you wish. I, however, am still discussing the accuracy of the
>> connection between the original C code and the JavaScript produced by
>> Emscripten, a topic for which comp.lang.c is still an appropriate
>> cross-reference. The minute that this thread ceases to have a valid C
>> connection, I will also lose interest in it.
> 
> Please point out the word or paragraph in your posting that contains or 
> refers to C code.  If you reasonably cannot, you should reconsider.

I can point out two such paragraphs:

> The OP called it JavaScript, without any prefix. He was talking about
> Emscripten. The Emscripten web page
> <https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki> also calls what it produces
> JavaScript, without any prefix. I don't think I'm competent to judge
> whether or not it would be correct to take what they said about
> "JavaScript", and treat it as if were an an equivalent statement about
> "ECMAScript". Can you confirm that such a conversion would be correct?

"What they said about JavaScript" refers to comments about the
translation of C code to JavaScript, and is therefore indirectly a
comment about C code. You might object to the indirect nature of that
reference, but it is not possible to answer my question without reading
those comments, understanding the C code contained in those comments,
and being able to comment on how well that C code was translated.

The following, however, is much more directly about C code - it says so
explicitly:

> "Do the differences between those different versions of ECMAScript affect the validity of Emscripten's translation of this C code?"

And it is precisely those two paragraphs that are the primary reason for
my message; the rest of the message was just about me responding to your
quibbles.

...
>> I did indeed search the Web. The Wikipedia page for JavaScript says
>> "JavaScript (JS) is a dynamic computer programming language". so you'll
>> have to forgive me for thinking that there might be some truth in that
>> statement.
> 
> First one has to define what “dynamic programming language” means.

No, actually, I don't. Nothing that I wrote depends for it's correctness
on the precise definition used for the term "programming language". If
you would prefer that I refer to "JavaScript" as an "oompa-loompa"
rather than a "programming language", feel free to read what I've said
with that term used in place of "programming language" - the change
won't affect any of the points I was actually talking about.

...
>> There's nothing unusual about Wikipedia being incorrect - but if so,
>> would you or anyone else who cares about the issue care to correct that
>> article? If so, how would you correct it?
> 
> I would, and I have a long time ago.  I am not convinced that further 
> editing would be worthwhile.  The misconception of a single language appears 
> to be cemented too deeply into the thinking of the general public.

I would not infer that JavaScript is a single language from that
description - I don't know of any computer language that remained
"single" for any significant length of time. Every language I'm familiar
with has been distributed by different vendors, and has gone through
multiple versions from most of those vendors. There may be some
single-vendor languages which have only ever had one release, but I'm
not familiar with any of them.

Very early in my career I was offered a position that would have
required me to learn a language that was only used by that particular
company, and was never intended to be more widely distributed. I turned
down that position, so it doesn't count as a language that I'm familiar
with - but I also doubt that it had only a single release.

>>>> From your comments earlier, I assume it's something about the case.
>>> It is not just about the case, and I wonder which of my comments could
>>> have mislead you to that assumption.
>>
>> "... newsgroup name is case-insensitive ... You would not talk about “c”
>> either, ..."
> 
> That refers to the fact that you cannot infer from the newsgroup name the 
> spelling of the language

Odd - most of the newsgroups that I'm familiar with that are devoted to
a particular computer programming language do in fact have names that
provide evidence from which you can infer the spelling (other than case)
of the language's name.

> I had not expected the ECMAScript Support Matrix to malfunction this way; 
> IIRC it had worked yesterday.  I also had not expected that you would not 
> research the newsgroup and the Web more thoroughly before you posted.

I didn't choose the newsgroup; I was responding to a message
cross-posted to that group. It's the OP's responsibility, not mine, to
investigate that newsgroup before cross-posting to it. To me, his
decision to cross-post to comp.lang.javascript still seems quite
reasonable - except for the fact that it had the consequence of bringing
you into this discussion.

>  I 
> prefer to not repeat myself.  Have you tried a Web cache yet?  If not, why 
> not?

I had thought you had already (finally!) explained yourself, in the very
same message where you mentioned using a Web cache, so there didn't seem
any point in checking out your web site. It still displays as a blank page.

...
>> The OP called it JavaScript, without any prefix.
> 
> Which begs the question which “JavaScript” they are talking about. ...

It doesn't "beg" the question. That is precisely the question I was
asking you down below. These comments are part of the background for
that question.

>> He was talking about Emscripten. The Emscripten web page
>> <https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki> also calls what it produces
>> JavaScript, without any prefix.
...
>> I don't think I'm competent to judge whether or not it would be correct to
>> take what they said about "JavaScript", and treat it as if were an an
>> equivalent statement about "ECMAScript". Can you confirm that such a
>> conversion would be correct?
...
>> I certainly have no basis on which to choose a vendor name to use as a
>> prefix. Would you care to identify the appropriate vendor?
> 
> Of the ECMAScript implementations that I would consider “major”, ...

This isn't about the "major"ness of the vendor - it's about the
correctness of the statements made by the OP and the Emscripten web
site. Do you know which vendor's names could be inserted into those
statements as a prefix before "JavaScript", in order to make them
correct? Do you know which names would render them incorrect? Unless you
know of some names that would fall into each category, there doesn't
seem to be any point in criticizing them for failing to specify the
vendor. And there's certainly no point in criticizing me for failing to
insert the vendor name that they failed to insert in the comments I was
responding to.

>> Do the differences between those different versions of ECMAScript affect
>> the validity of Emscripten's translation of this C code?  If so, how? 
> There are no versions of ECMAScript.  There is the ECMAScript Language 
> Specification, there are Editions of it, and implementations of those.
...

Your "response" just quibbled about my use of the term "version",
without actually answering the question. To address that quibble, in
light of your response, replace "versions of ECMAScript" with
"implementations of different Editions of ECMAScript".

>> If not, there's no point in worrying about which one is being referred to.
> 
> Wrong.  The used implementation is defined by the runtime environment.

We only get to that "if not" clause if the you claim that the "if so"
clause doesn't apply. You didn't actually answer that question, so I
don't know whether you're claiming that "if so" or "if not" is the
relevant clause.

If you are claiming that "if not" is the relevant clause, I don't see
why the statement you've made is relevant to your conclusion that what I
said is wrong. If "the differences between the different implementations
of the different Editions of ECMAScript" do not "affect the validity of
Emscripten's translation of the C code", and the validity of that
translation is the sole question being raised, why would it matter that
"The used implementation is defined by the runtime environment."? That
comment just seems like a non-sequitur.

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

Thread

Re: "i = i|0" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2014-06-11 21:09 +0000
  Re: "i = i|0" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-11 17:37 -0400
    Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 00:56 +0200
      Re: "i = i|0" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-12 11:41 +0000
        Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 14:28 +0200
      Re: "i = i|0" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-12 08:19 -0400
        Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 14:45 +0200
          Re: "i = i|0" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-12 09:25 -0400
            Re: "i = i|0" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-12 14:50 +0000
              Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 16:55 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-12 11:28 -0700
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 20:46 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-06-12 20:58 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-12 19:20 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-06-12 22:13 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-12 21:15 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-06-12 23:59 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-06-13 01:10 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-13 01:52 +0200
                ECMAScript standards (was: "i = i|0") Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-15 12:53 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-06-12 17:11 -0500
                Re: "i = i|0" Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 22:40 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-12 22:44 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-13 01:16 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-16 12:55 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-16 22:44 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2014-06-13 19:16 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-13 19:21 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-13 18:24 +0100
                Re: "i = i|0" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-13 21:25 +0000
            Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 17:13 +0200
              Re: "i = i|0" raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-12 15:20 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 17:32 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-17 12:30 +0200
              Re: "i = i|0" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-12 12:17 -0400
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 20:01 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-12 16:13 -0400
                Re: "i = i|0" glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-12 20:44 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-12 20:59 +0000
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-13 01:22 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-12 19:48 -0500
                Re: "i = i|0" "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-06-12 18:32 -0700
                Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-13 12:12 +0200
                Re: "i = i|0" John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-06-13 10:16 +0100
                Re: "i = i|0" Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-13 11:44 +0100
          Re: "i = i|0" "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-06-12 15:06 +0100
            Re: "i = i|0" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-06-12 16:54 +0200

csiph-web