Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?

Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Date	2014-01-26 14:49 -0800
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>
Message-ID	<ea16c28b-9b88-494d-b45e-a7db01ec2124@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?
From	"Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 3:24:47 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> > The issue with the DOM forcing you into Immediate Mode whereas a
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Retained Mode is more appropriate in many situations.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I am not aware of the DOM forcing me into anything.  Please define those 
> terms you just invented.

If you think I just invented the terms, I'm disappointed.

> > Hence the are countless articles on how avoid repaint/reflow through
> > manipulation of JavaScript objects creating a facsimile of the
> > document and/or divorced fragments which are then "committed" for
> > display after manipulation.
> 
> It appears to be easy to avoid repaint/reflow: First build the subtree in 
> memory, then append it.

I wouldn't claim "easy" if there are numerous articles on it

> Which facsimiles are you talking about?

You already have it in mind, the details are on how this happens to be accomplished.

> Please elaborate.

I don't think I should bother as I suspect you are more interested in having an argument itself than arriving at a conclusion. I'm definitely not in the mood for such a waste of time.

> > If a web dev's bag of tricks contains a bullet point about "avoid the
> > DOM", then that is a smell if I ever smelled one.
> 
> I am not sure that this even is an argument, let alone a sound one.

Regardless of your opinion of it, it is a common claim and practice.

> > Also, doing for example BFS(myJSObjectDomFacsimile) is faster than
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > BFS(someDomElementUsingElementMemberMethods) as you are already
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > aware due to the numerous calls to an element's methods vs
> > reference walking in the first
>
> Please elaborate.

I've elaborated enough.

> >> > 5. A lack of necessary APIs
> >> 
> >> As the DOM *is* an API, you must mean its (API) _features_.  Such as?
> > 
> > As listed here: <http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/>
> 
> How does this status document substantiate your argument?

The fact that there is effort in creating new APIs demonstrates that what has traditionally been provided is insufficient, and yes: API is being used in plural.
 
> >> > 3. non-idiomatic usage
> >> 
> >> Such as?
> > 
> > While the other points are a repeat of arguments I've seen/heard,
> > this particular point is my opinion. The DOM is a leaky paradigm
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > that wants an Object-Oriented, imperative use. Since JavaScript
> > is not strongly in those camps,
> 
> Am I to understand that you think JavaScript is not strong with regard to 
> object-oriented, imperative use?  If yes, how did you get that idea?  With 
> regard to programming paradigms, JavaScript is an object-oriented, 
> procedural-imperative programming language, is it not?

I'm referring to the fact it isn't _ONLY_ that paradigm (I used the qualifier "strongly" for a reason). Stop trying to be contrary for its own sake.
 
> > there are impedance mismatches that occur, and it is common IME that code
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > tends to get warped to fit this API (or it grows overcomplicated wrappers
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > in libs and frameworks).  This is another smell of bad design.
 
> Have you been spending too much time with the ties?  Your arguments read 
> like a winner’s game of Bullshit Bingo: You write much, but your words mean 
> nothing.  Please define your terminology (better: avoid it in the future) 
> and elaborate on your arguments.

I'm not in the business of helping you with reading comprehension if you're unwilling to even glance at the well-defined terminology you don't know. It seems to me you have an ulterior motive here and I'm not interested in it. (No, I won't define "ulterior" for you...)

Thread

Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 02:37 -0800
  Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 11:52 +0100
    Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 12:04 -0800
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 22:24 +0100
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 14:49 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-27 02:14 +0100
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 18:30 -0800
              Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 19:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 19:50 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 21:18 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 22:27 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 23:23 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:12 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 22:30 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:35 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:59 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:52 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-02-02 10:09 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-04 23:42 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:40 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:17 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:51 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-31 01:06 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:36 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:47 +0100
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-27 14:36 +0000
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 16:05 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-29 15:26 +0000
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:44 -0800
              "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 11:10 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-01-30 10:38 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 13:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 12:45 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:05 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-31 21:32 +0000
                OT: "impedance mismatch" (was: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-01 02:40 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 10:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:54 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "ViLco" <villiber@tin.it> - 2014-01-30 16:24 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 00:35 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:16 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 15:14 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 00:56 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 22:13 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:51 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <J.R.Stockton@physics.org> - 2014-01-31 19:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-02 17:44 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 15:36 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 17:59 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 17:18 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 19:47 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-04 10:33 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-06 13:40 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-06 10:12 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-07 10:32 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-08 23:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-09 10:33 +0100

csiph-web