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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #28940 > unrolled thread

Multidimensional arrays in javascript

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-02 14:31 -0800
    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-02 14:47 -0800
    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-12-02 14:50 -0800
    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 00:42 +0100
      Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-02 18:03 -0800
      Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 09:04 -0800
        Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 18:23 +0100
          Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 09:48 -0800
            Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 19:49 +0100
              Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 11:17 -0800
                Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 20:26 +0100
                  Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 11:32 -0800
                    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 20:37 +0100
                Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-04 10:38 +0000
                  Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-04 13:37 +0100
                    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-04 16:14 +0000
                      Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-04 18:10 +0100
                        Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-12-04 18:52 +0000
                          Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-04 20:07 +0100
                        Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-06 14:47 +0000
                        Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-06 16:11 +0000
                          Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-07 06:54 +1100
                            Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "danca (Daniele Campagna)" <cyberdanny@tiscalinet.it> - 2015-12-06 22:43 +0100
                              Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-06 23:19 +0100
                            Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2015-12-08 11:16 +0000
                  Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Aleksandro <aleksandro@gmx.com> - 2015-12-04 11:55 -0300
                    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-04 17:26 +0100
                  Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-04 09:23 -0800
              Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 20:29 +0100
                Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-12-03 13:23 -0800
          Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 10:06 -0800
            Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-12-03 20:21 +0100
          Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-03 21:00 +0100
    Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2015-12-02 16:50 -0800
      Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 07:10 -0800
        Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 07:23 -0800
      Re: Multidimensional arrays in javascript jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 07:15 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#28940 — Multidimensional arrays in javascript

Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?

Let say i for some reason would like to store something similar to file and subfolder names in an directory tree similar array structure would that be possible?

If so, do javascript allocate space dependent upon the depth of the multidimensional array?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28941

Den onsdag 2 december 2015 kl. 23:32:17 UTC+1 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?
> 
> Let say i for some reason would like to store something similar to file and subfolder names in an directory tree similar array structure would that be possible?
> 
> If so, do javascript allocate space dependent upon the depth of the multidimensional array?

Will it work to splice in elements at other levels than first?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28942

> wrote in message 
> news:cbd3e2fa-ab38-4650-a9f7-3c8b3edd204a@googlegroups.com...

> Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?
[...]

Perhaps, memory limitations?

;^) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28943

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 02 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?

Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!

Which dos not mean you cannot put an array in a single element of an array, 
but that is beside the point:

Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28946

Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 00:42:27 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 02 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> > Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?
> 
> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> 
> Which dos not mean you cannot put an array in a single element of an array, 
> but that is beside the point:
> 
> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Ok got you Evertjan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28952

Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 00:42:27 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 02 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> > Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in javascript?
> 
> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> 
> Which dos not mean you cannot put an array in a single element of an array, 
> but that is beside the point:
> 
> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Hello can those arrays linke to elements in a hierarchy array type be of different data types?

Example a byte array at first level where each element hold an integer array?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28953

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 00:42:27 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 02 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
>> > Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in
>> > javascript? 
>> 
>> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
>> 
>> Which dos not mean you cannot put an array in a single element of an
>> array, but that is beside the point:
>> 
>> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!

> Hello can those arrays linke to elements in a hierarchy array type be of
> different data types? 

Arrays do not link to elements.

The individual elements of javascript arrays:
- are empty [meaning nonexistant, usefully conserving memory]
- hold a variable value
- hold an object, could be an array

> Example a byte array at first level where each element hold an integer
> array? 

Javascript arrays are all the same,
there are no "byte arrays" or "integer arrays".

There are no "levels" that is just your imagination.

This is just like asking if a javascript string can have a letter "p" at
the 21st letter location when the 17th location is empty.

Please Jonas, for your own sake, do not invent things that are not there!

There is a difference in what you do on a programming level,
and what javscript has to offer as a programming language.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28954

Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 18:23:45 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 00:42:27 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 02 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> >> > Is there any limit to depth of an multidimensional array in
> >> > javascript? 
> >> 
> >> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> >> 
> >> Which dos not mean you cannot put an array in a single element of an
> >> array, but that is beside the point:
> >> 
> >> Javascript has NO multidimensional arrays !!!
> 
> > Hello can those arrays linke to elements in a hierarchy array type be of
> > different data types? 
> 
> Arrays do not link to elements.
> 
> The individual elements of javascript arrays:
> - are empty [meaning nonexistant, usefully conserving memory]
> - hold a variable value
> - hold an object, could be an array
> 
> > Example a byte array at first level where each element hold an integer
> > array? 
> 
> Javascript arrays are all the same,
> there are no "byte arrays" or "integer arrays".
> 
> There are no "levels" that is just your imagination.
> 
> This is just like asking if a javascript string can have a letter "p" at
> the 21st letter location when the 17th location is empty.
> 
> Please Jonas, for your own sake, do not invent things that are not there!
> 
> There is a difference in what you do on a programming level,
> and what javscript has to offer as a programming language.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

It is not what is said at Stackoverflow they claim Javascript has typed arrays.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12332002/how-to-store-a-byte-array-in-javascript


Int8
Uint8
Int16
Uint16
Int32
Uint32
Float32
Float64
For example:

?var array = new Uint8Array(100);
array[42] = 10;
alert(array[42]);?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28956

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

> It is not what is said at Stackoverflow they claim Javascript has typed
> arrays. 

Nonsense, you are discussong by authority.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28957

Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 19:49:11 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > It is not what is said at Stackoverflow they claim Javascript has typed
> > arrays. 
> 
> Nonsense, you are discussong by authority.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

What does that even mean does it mean Javascript have typed arrays or not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28959

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 19:49:11 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
>> 
>> > It is not what is said at Stackoverflow they claim Javascript has typed
>> > arrays. 
>> 
>> Nonsense, you are discussing by authority.

> What does that even mean 

"discussing by authority"?

Well, better look that up for yourself.

> does it mean Javascript have typed arrays or not?

NOT. 

That does not change when you state 
that your holy book ["stackoverflow"] says it does.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28961

Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 20:26:40 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > Den torsdag 3 december 2015 kl. 19:49:11 UTC+1 skrev Evertjan.:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:
> >> 
> >> > It is not what is said at Stackoverflow they claim Javascript has typed
> >> > arrays. 
> >> 
> >> Nonsense, you are discussing by authority.
> 
> > What does that even mean 
> 
> "discussing by authority"?
> 
> Well, better look that up for yourself.
> 
> > does it mean Javascript have typed arrays or not?
> 
> NOT. 
> 
> That does not change when you state 
> that your holy book ["stackoverflow"] says it does.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

No i know the phrase but i do not know what you suggest.

Do you suggest that stackoverflow dreamt thais up?
Or do you suggest that they know more than you, afterall you said by authority so which is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28962

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote on 03 Dec 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> That does not change when you state 
>> that your holy book ["stackoverflow"] says it does.
> 
> No i know the phrase but i do not know what you suggest.
> 
> Do you suggest that stackoverflow dreamt thais up?
> Or do you suggest that they know more than you, afterall you said by
> authority so which is it? 

You must be believing in holy books and other fairy tales.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28965

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:17:44 -0800 (PST), jonas.thornvall@gmail.com
wrote:

  <snip>
>> does it mean Javascript have typed arrays or not?

The correct answer to your question is "yes and no".

Up to and including ECMAScript version 5.1 the answer is no : there is
no such thing as a typed array. 

In ECMAScript version 6 there are typed array objects of various
types.

Who do you hope will view your web site? If it includes people using
older PCs then you should assume that it's version 5.1 being used, so
no typed arrays.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28966

John Harris wrote:

> Up to and including ECMAScript version 5.1 the answer is no : there is
> no such thing as a typed array.
> 
> In ECMAScript version 6 there are typed array objects of various
> types.

There are no ECMAScript versions.  To assume there were betrays a 
fundamental misconception about ECMAScript-based programming languages.

Instead, there is an ECMAScript Language Specification that is published in 
_Editions_, and various different and differing implementations of it
that are released as programming languages with version numbers.  Several of 
those implementations have “JavaScript” in their name now (initially, there 
was only one such implementation, Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript; since Firefox 
5 the version numbers of *Mozilla* JavaScript have been aligned with the 
Firefox version).  (Probably someone has told you this before.)

Also, typed arrays had already been available in several implementations 
before ECMAScript 2015/Edition 6 was finalized, voted on, and published; 
those were implementations of the 5.1 Edition, and earlier, at the time.  
This was possible because per the definitions in its “Conformance” section, 
all Editions of the Specification so far allowed it:

| 2 Conformance
| 
| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript must provide and support all the 
| types, values, objects, properties, functions, and program syntax and 
| semantics described in this specification.
| 
| […]
| 
| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript may provide additional types,
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| values, objects, properties, and functions beyond those described in this 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| specification. In particular, a conforming implementation of ECMAScript 
| may provide properties not described in this specification, and values for 
| those properties, for objects that are described in this specification.
| 
| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript may support program and regular 
| expression syntax not described in this specification. […] 

(For the newest Edition, see
<http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-conformance>)

The record shows that new Editions of the ECMAScript Language Specification 
always codified already implemented behavior, attempting to specify common 
features in existing implementations, and, by specifying them differently or 
not at all, deprecating features in and behavior of existing implementations 
that were unanimously considered unfavorable within the Ecma Technical 
Committee (TC) 39.

See also the ECMAScript Support Matrix (“ES Matrix”) referenced in my 
signature.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28968

On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:37:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> Up to and including ECMAScript version 5.1 the answer is no : there is
>> no such thing as a typed array.
>> 
>> In ECMAScript version 6 there are typed array objects of various
>> types.
>
>There are no ECMAScript versions.  To assume there were betrays a 
>fundamental misconception about ECMAScript-based programming languages.

The ECMAScript standard uses "edition"; the Unicode standards it
references use "version". The Oxford Dictionary of English says the
words have much the same meaning, though "version" is slightly biased
towards things that evolve with time and "edition" towards things that
appear in different media.

When talking to Jonas Thornvall we need to use words that he
understands. I might have guessed wrong; you, Thomas, don't even try.


  <snip>
>Also, typed arrays had already been available in several implementations 
>before ECMAScript 2015/Edition 6 was finalized, voted on, and published; 
>those were implementations of the 5.1 Edition, and earlier, at the time. 

Available in all the browsers used by his preferred audience? 

 
>This was possible because per the definitions in its “Conformance” section, 
>all Editions of the Specification so far allowed it:

Yes, I noticed that in Edition 2.


>| 2 Conformance
>| 
>| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript must provide and support all the 
>| types, values, objects, properties, functions, and program syntax and 
>| semantics described in this specification.
>| 
>| […]
>| 
>| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript may provide additional types,
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| values, objects, properties, and functions beyond those described in this 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| specification. In particular, a conforming implementation of ECMAScript 
>| may provide properties not described in this specification, and values for 
>| those properties, for objects that are described in this specification.
>| 
>| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript may support program and regular 
>| expression syntax not described in this specification. […] 
>
>(For the newest Edition, see
><http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-conformance>)

Wildly over-quoted.


>The record shows that new Editions of the ECMAScript Language Specification 
>always codified already implemented behavior, attempting to specify common 
>features in existing implementations, and, by specifying them differently or 
>not at all, deprecating features in and behavior of existing implementations 
>that were unanimously considered unfavorable within the Ecma Technical 
>Committee (TC) 39.
>
>See also the ECMAScript Support Matrix (“ES Matrix”) referenced in my 
>signature.

How does this help with old browsers that haven't been or can't be
updated?

Why tell customers that they *must* use a new browser?

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28970

John Harris wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:37:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

>> John Harris wrote:
>>> Up to and including ECMAScript version 5.1 the answer is no : there is
>>> no such thing as a typed array.
>>> 
>>> In ECMAScript version 6 there are typed array objects of various
>>> types.
>> There are no ECMAScript versions.  To assume there were betrays a
>> fundamental misconception about ECMAScript-based programming languages.
> 
> The ECMAScript standard uses "edition"; the Unicode standards it
> references use "version".

Red herring.  The terminology in the Unicode standard is irrelevant in that 
regard.

> […]
> When talking to Jonas Thornvall we need to use words that he
> understands. I might have guessed wrong; you, Thomas, don't even try.

I just do not agree with your approach.  Communicating with people as if 
they were not intelligent keeps them ignorant and dependent.  By contrast,
I always assume that I address intelligent people who want to learn and to 
understand what they are doing.  So I strive to use proper terminology to 
begin with.

>   <snip>
>> Also, typed arrays had already been available in several implementations
>> before ECMAScript 2015/Edition 6 was finalized, voted on, and published;
>> those were implementations of the 5.1 Edition, and earlier, at the time.
> 
> Available in all the browsers used by his preferred audience?

I do not know the browsers used by his preferred audience: His postings 
appear to have not been distributed to the public news server that I am 
using, the quotations of his posting do not contain that information, and 
looking up his posting now would be illogical as I had killfiled him before.

>> The record shows that new Editions of the ECMAScript Language
>> Specification always codified already implemented behavior, attempting to
>> specify common features in existing implementations, and, by specifying
>> them differently or not at all, deprecating features in and behavior of
>> existing implementations that were unanimously considered unfavorable
>> within the Ecma Technical Committee (TC) 39.
>> See also the ECMAScript Support Matrix (“ES Matrix”) referenced in my
>> signature.
> 
> How does this help with old browsers that haven't been or can't be
> updated?

The dynamic nature of the languages allow for new features that are not 
built-in to be emulated.  That being said, one must consider carefully 
whether it really is a good idea to jump through hoops for browsers that do 
not receive security updates anymore.
 
> Why tell customers that they *must* use a new browser?

See above.  But I have not suggested to do that.  Instead, I had presented 
an approach recently that works even without native support for typed 
arrays.  And where Proxy is not available as well, typed arrays still can be 
emulated with explicit method calls, whereas a wrapper type can be devised 
and used that falls back to those in that case.  (The implementation of the 
latter is left as an exercise to the reader.)


JFYI: Since the “From” header field value of your postings, too, constitutes 
anti-social behavior, I have restored the corresponding filter rule to my 
scorefile which had been accidentally reset recently.  IOW, your follow-ups 
to my postings will neither be displayed by default, nor will I be notified 
of them, until you fix this.

See also: <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28972

In article <4267376.NJ5XMC3WOf@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:37:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

Novels are much better.

>>>> In ECMAScript version 6 there are typed array objects of various
>>>> types.

>>> There are no ECMAScript versions.  To assume there were betrays a
>>> fundamental misconception about ECMAScript-based programming languages.
>> 
>> The ECMAScript standard uses "edition"; the Unicode standards it
>> references use "version".
>
>Red herring.  The terminology in the Unicode standard is irrelevant in that 
>regard.
>
>> […]
>> When talking to Jonas Thornvall we need to use words that he
>> understands. I might have guessed wrong; you, Thomas, don't even try.
>
>I just do not agree with your approach.  Communicating with people as if 
>they were not intelligent keeps them ignorant and dependent.

It's nothing to do with whether they're intelligent or not; it's to do
with whether they are going to understand what you are talking about.
This justifies using simpler or possibly wrong terms in order to get
the point across. As they pick things up, you adjust your language
accordingly. This is what any good teacher should do.

About 40 years ago I had an operation and, afterwards, asked the
surgeon what he had done. He responded as you do: he described the
procedure as if he were talking to another surgeon. A completely
useless response, IOW.

-- 
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28973

Tim Streater wrote:

> In article <4267376.NJ5XMC3WOf@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>>John Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:37:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.
> 
> Novels are much better.

Attribution novels are only better in making postings less readable, as can 
be seen above.

>>I just do not agree with your approach.  Communicating with people as if
>>they were not intelligent keeps them ignorant and dependent.
> 
> It's nothing to do with whether they're intelligent or not; it's to do
> with whether they are going to understand what you are talking about.
> This justifies using simpler or possibly wrong terms in order to get
> the point across. As they pick things up, you adjust your language
> accordingly. This is what any good teacher should do.

A good teacher does not start with the assumption that their pupils are 
stupid.

> About 40 years ago I had an operation and, afterwards, asked the
> surgeon what he had done. He responded as you do: he described the
> procedure as if he were talking to another surgeon. A completely
> useless response, IOW.

Their response was only useless *to you* because *you* did not care to
ask or do research about the things that you did not understand.
 
But thank you for reminding me of a missing entry in my new scorefile.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28980

On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 18:10:06 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 13:37:35 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>Attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

Thomas's complaint is based on a document aimed at the *.de
newsgroups, not the *.uk, comp.lang.*, etc groups. In addition, the
document uses an argument that is logically flawed, which destroys
Thomas's justification for complaining.


  <snip>
>JFYI: Since the “From” header field value of your postings, too, constitutes 
>anti-social behavior, I have restored the corresponding filter rule to my 
>scorefile which had been accidentally reset recently.  IOW, your follow-ups 
>to my postings will neither be displayed by default, nor will I be notified 
>of them, until you fix this.

It is my requirement that anyone who replies by e-mail to one of my
news articles MUST use the Reply-To address. Using a different address
when there is a Reply-To address is antisocial at best. If sent to me
such an e-mail will be ignored by one means or another.

Thomas is complaining that I have appended .invalid to a working
address in my From field. Since the address will not be used for
e-mail but is obviously meaningful to a human we have to conclude that
Thomas uses any feeble excuse he can find to shout at people.


>See also: <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

This is 17 years old. I doubt if the author has had to delete several
hundred large spam e-mails a day for several weeks. 


  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web