Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Not understanding OOP stuff
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:22:14 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <87fudmr2uh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <dc1ffbaa-0933-47cd-b0dd-969f7927ed03@googlegroups.com> <objects-20170721181824@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <1914438.irdbgypaU6@PointedEars.de> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ca27eb692c41fad091d6d60e0c170737"; logging-data="28881"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BUgZ/Wu1LFYsGeAYhqADPlP3XqY2cHDM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CbKoWXwClnulDUBY233tsZ/CFE4= sha1:0QLMU/auEwGlAU1qi+9J0tU99LU=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.fd9c738f1522a8931ea2.20170724032214BST.87fudmr2uh.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:33631

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.