Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Joao Rodrigues Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 19:57:49 -0300 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <6711ac96-c627-4e0c-b267-6a7602e0cdc5@googlegroups.com> <5364e45c-be9f-49cd-9f6b-dc4dab851c80@googlegroups.com> <334c24c3-1781-4361-bef3-37936c4cf926@googlegroups.com> <6c9bc49a-2ca7-44a5-aa3b-eb4b3b18da21@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: TzkU+RddRp7Q+QUZDlP7cg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-GB X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://aioe.org Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:33974 bit-naughty wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:32:58 PM UTC+5:30, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > >> That's utter bullshit, but the really devastating bullshit is to think >> that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it. > > Can you please, coolly and from the beginning, explain what you mean by this? I'm not a *complete* idiot about OOP, I recently read a book about it - however that book was quite old, and as a telling fact, it's index did not have either the word "new" or the word "this" in it!!!!! (which is what I fucking BOUGHT IT FOR!!). One cannot explain the inexplicable. You may simply ignore any rumors, innuendos, hearsay about JavaScript (JS) opposing the ECMAScript Language Specification, particularly the overview section [1]. You may safely stick to what Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript, has written [2] and spoken [3] about it. In a nutshell, JavaScript is a prototype-based, multi-paradigm scripting language that is dynamic, and supports object-oriented, imperative, and functional programming styles [4]. [1] [2] "I’m not proud, but I’m happy that I chose Scheme-ish first-class functions and Self-ish (albeit singular) prototypes as the main ingredients. The Java influences, especially y2k Date bugs but also the primitive vs. object distinction (e.g., string vs. String), were unfortunate." [3] Interview with Brendan Eich – The Origin of JavaScript "32:55 - BRENDAN: "[...] people say JavaScript is powered by Self. There was very little Self in fact, because I had so little time. And Self has things like lexical scope, so you have no conflation of objects and scope ribs, *which JavaScript had and has due to the global object* [...]. But I did at least have the sense to make functions first class, which Self does, Lisp does. And I realized if I didn’t do that, I didn’t have much. I was in such a rush. It was ten days until the demo in front of the Engineering team. And I thought, “How am I going to do this and make it useful?” I had to lean on a very few concepts that were powerful. One was functions, [...] and closures were only latently there in the very first version, the other was *objects you could create ad hoc*." [4] > > Still...... just *talk*, will ya? (No fighting, guys.) > That reminds me of "Imagine", by John Lennon :-) -- Joao Rodrigues