Re: Not understanding OOP stuff

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: Not understanding OOP stuff
Date	2017-07-24 03:22 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87fudmr2uh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <02ec6752-8a2d-4116-9396-71d36dcbd579@googlegroups.com> <87k22zrmtj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3298850e-dce6-4384-af58-8bb58830960f@googlegroups.com> <87379msw5i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9e148e6c-b156-45ed-925a-26980f838473@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:

> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:04:01 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> Taking a cue from you, I'd rather say that it supports functional
>> programming.
>
> And you'd have it exactly up-side down, as customary for the industry.
>
> And based on pure unreasonability: 1) I have mentioned that JS is that
> powerful and more, so the invalid reduction is all yours;

I don't think anyone has disagreed that one can do functional
programming in ECMAScript.  (If that's what you mean by it being "that
powerful".)

> 2) I have
> challenged you to find something that makes JS not *essentially functional*,
> and I'd expect you in particular (and anyone chiming in with claims) to know
> that "essentially functional" is precise enough that we can give a definite
> answer to that question.

When did you so challenge me?

As it happens, I explained exactly why ECMAScript is not essentially
functional in the text you've just edited -- the presence and idiomatic
use of mutable state.

Since only you know exactly what is need for a language to meet your
definition, you would have advanced the exchange more fruitfully by
explaining *why* you disagree.  *That* you disagree can be taken for
granted.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

Thread

Not understanding OOP stuff bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-07-21 09:11 -0700
  Re: Not understanding OOP stuff JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2017-07-22 19:36 +0700
  Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-23 18:12 +0200
    Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 09:19 -0700
      Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-23 20:10 +0100
        Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 12:42 -0700
          Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-23 22:03 +0100
            Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 14:18 -0700
              Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-24 03:22 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 21:44 -0700
            Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-24 03:49 +0100
              Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 21:50 -0700
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 19:50 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 12:00 -0700
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:29 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-25 05:58 -0700
              Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 11:04 +0200
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 00:09 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:20 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 11:31 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-25 17:02 +0200
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 23:47 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-27 15:15 +0200
            Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 10:33 +0200
              Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 02:13 -0700
          Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:15 +0100
            Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 03:58 -0700
              Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:42 +0100
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-25 05:59 -0700
                Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 18:32 +0100
        Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-23 22:42 +0200
          Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 13:55 -0700
          Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:18 +0100
            Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 15:19 +0200
      Re: Not understanding OOP stuff "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-07-24 10:20 -0700
        Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 11:46 -0700
          Re: Not understanding OOP stuff "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-07-25 05:37 -0700
    Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:04 +0100
      Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 16:04 +0200

csiph-web