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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #34811 > unrolled thread

Trying to create array of object literals

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

Contents

  Trying to create array of object literals bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2018-04-12 12:17 -0700
    Re: Trying to create array of object literals bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2018-04-12 12:26 -0700
    Re: Trying to create array of object literals Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2018-04-12 21:47 +0200
    Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-12 12:49 -0700
    Re: Trying to create array of object literals Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-13 10:27 +0200
      Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-13 10:57 +0100
        Re: Trying to create array of object literals Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-13 23:38 +0200
          Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-14 11:22 +0100
            Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-14 07:25 -0700
              Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-14 09:09 -0700
                Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-16 09:43 +0100
                  Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-16 02:04 -0700
                  Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-16 11:23 +0200
                    Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:32 +0100
                      Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-17 23:37 +0200
                        Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-18 16:18 +0100
                          Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-19 23:08 +0200
                            Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-20 10:17 +0100
                              Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-20 12:45 +0200
                                Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-20 19:08 +0100
                Re: Trying to create array of object literals "c.l.js" <trollhunter@curiosity.kills.no> - 2018-04-20 17:04 -0300
                  Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-20 13:15 -0700
                  Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-21 02:35 +0200
                    Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-21 01:36 -0700
                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-21 11:46 -0700
                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-21 11:48 -0700
                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-21 23:53 -0700
                          Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-22 10:33 -0700
                            Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-23 00:27 -0700
                              Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-23 11:50 -0700
                                Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-23 12:00 -0700
                                  Re: Is JS a functional programming language? (was: Trying to create array of object literals) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-23 15:07 -0700
                                    Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2018-04-24 00:47 +0200
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-23 16:12 -0700
                                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2018-04-24 01:30 +0200
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-23 16:45 -0700
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-24 09:54 +0100
                                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-04-24 10:17 +0000
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-24 12:02 -0700
                                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-25 05:04 +0200
                                          Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-25 02:16 -0700
                                            Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-25 02:20 -0700
                                            Re: Is JS a functional programming language? John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-25 18:22 +0100
                                              Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2018-04-25 17:25 +0000
                                              Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-25 14:50 -0700
                                          Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-25 14:39 -0700
                                            Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-29 20:44 +0200
                                              Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2018-04-29 13:45 -0700
                    Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "c.l.js" <trollhunter@curiosity.kills.no> - 2018-04-21 19:51 -0300
                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-22 01:18 +0200
                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-22 02:19 +0200
                          Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2018-04-22 01:52 +0000
                            Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-22 04:30 +0200
                              Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2018-04-22 02:45 +0000
                                Re: Is JS a functional programming language? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-22 05:55 +0200
                                  Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2018-04-22 04:04 +0000
                                    Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-22 10:59 +0200
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-22 11:03 +0100
                                        Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-22 12:50 +0200
                                          Re: Is JS a functional programming language? John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-23 09:19 +0100
                                      Re: Is JS a functional programming language? "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2018-04-22 12:58 +0000
              Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-16 10:02 +0100
                Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-16 02:05 -0700
                  Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-16 11:27 +0200
                    Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-16 02:33 -0700
                      Re: Trying to create array of object literals "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2018-04-16 14:03 +0200
                      Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:40 +0100
                        Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-17 09:45 +0100
                        Re: Trying to create array of object literals Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-18 03:25 +0200
                          Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-18 15:50 +0100
                          Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-18 16:08 +0100
                            Re: Trying to create array of object literals Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-19 03:34 +0200
                              Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-19 10:37 +0100
                          Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-19 19:02 +0100
                        Re: Trying to create array of object literals Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-19 03:25 +0200
                  Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-16 19:37 +0100
                    Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-16 11:48 -0700
                      Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-17 09:52 +0100
                        Re: Trying to create array of object literals Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-04-17 03:22 -0700
                          Re: Trying to create array of object literals John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2018-04-17 18:28 +0100
      Re: Trying to create array of object literals bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2018-04-13 04:08 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#34899 — Re: Is JS a functional programming language?

Evertjan. wrote:

> Nonsense, the meaning belongs to the one that says something.

Nonsense. The person that duplicates the communication, the receiver,
the intended target, his duplication/understanding is more important
than the sender of the communication.

If you say to me, "eat your carrots", and I hit you with a pan, because
that is what I thought you said/the meaning of what you said, which is
more important, what the sender said or what the receiver understood?

Regardless of the cause of the communication failure, it does not alter
the communication forumla. The communication receiver and what he
duplicates is the total point of the communication, otherwise why have
a communication. To hear yourself. :)

If that is not true for you so be it.  

> A debate is about expecting ideas that are not your own to begin with,
> and entering ideas that are not the ones of the 'opponents'.

Says you. (And is incorrect)

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

#34836

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Saturday, 14 April 2018 12:22:37 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 23:38:49 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
><snip>
>> >That "simpler" way is _not_ compatible with whatever you think "the 
>> >ECMAScript Standard" is.  *No* Edition of the ECMAScript Language 
>> >Specification (so far) specifies such *implementation* details.
>> 
>> What an amazingly silly remark. *Obviously*, 'pointer' is an
>> implementation detail. Equally obviously, so is 'reference'. The
>> difference is that 'reference' gives a thouroughly misleading
>> description of the ECMAScript language's semantics.
>
>There are no pointers in JS, not even near.  

You are saying that the machine instructions when a program is
executing *never* have a register or field containing the address of
another field ?

I don't believe you.

And, by the way, this news group is about ES; it is not restricted to
just JS.


>And a reference is not a pointer,
>and no, a reference is not an implementation detail.  You have it upside down.

You'll have to tell us what you mean by 'reference'. An ECMAScript
reference is a tuple, often consisting of an object, a string, and a
flag. It cannot be returned by a function, and is obviously not what
you are talking about. Are you sure you are using the same
non-ECMAScript meaning as Thomas?

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

#34838

On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:02:57 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<snip>
> > There are no pointers in JS, not even near.  
> 
> You are saying that the machine instructions when a program is
> executing *never* have a register or field containing the address of
> another field ?

You are conflating JS with the implementation of a JS runtime.

Julio

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

#34841

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 16 Apr 2018 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> You are conflating JS with the implementation of a JS runtime.

There is nothing wrong with such flatulence.

Would you say that unimplemented runtimes can exist?

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

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

#34842

On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:27:37 UTC+2, Evertjan.  wrote:

> Would you say that unimplemented runtimes can exist?

It's two different things, not that it does not exist: the fact that you write
a JS runtime and implement closures and stuff using C++ and pointers and memory
allocations is totally separate issue from what the JS language is.

Julio

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

#34843

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote on 16 Apr 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:27:37 UTC+2, Evertjan.  wrote:
> 
>> Would you say that unimplemented runtimes can exist?
> 
> It's two different things, not that it does not exist: the fact that you
> write a JS runtime and implement closures and stuff using C++ and
> pointers and memory allocations is totally separate issue from what the
> JS language is. 

You cannot "write a JS runtime".

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

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

#34848

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 02:33:50 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:27:37 UTC+2, Evertjan.  wrote:
>
>> Would you say that unimplemented runtimes can exist?
>
>It's two different things, not that it does not exist: the fact that you write
>a JS runtime and implement closures and stuff using C++ and pointers and memory
>allocations is totally separate issue from what the JS language is.

And what the ES language is is one that does not have programmable
pointers and does not have programmable references (for any reasonable
definition of 'reference').

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

#34851

On 16 Apr 2018 20:42:08 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>>And what the ES language is is one that does not have programmable
>>pointers and does not have programmable references (for any reasonable
>>definition of 'reference').
>
>      »A Reference is a resolved name or property binding.
>
>      A Reference consists of three components,
>      the base value component, the referenced name component,
>      and the Boolean-valued strict reference flag.«
>
>    ECMA-262 8th Edition / June 2017, 6.2.4
  <snip>

That's what I called an ECMAScript reference. It's not something that
you can manipulate with your ES program, and it's not something that
can be the value of a variable or property. It's something that is
(notionally) created and used during the execution of certain
operations, such as assignment.

Unfortunately, Thomas and co are using 'reference' to mean something
else, and screaming at people who don't use the word.

  John

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

#34862

Stefan Ram wrote:

> John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>> And what the ES language is is one that does not have programmable
>> pointers and does not have programmable references (for any reasonable
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> definition of 'reference').

By that statement, John G Harris has solidly *refuted* their own ridiculous 
claim.  Congratulations.

ECMAScript is not an actual programming language in the sense that you can 
write computer programs in it.  It is a standard for programming languages 
that requires implementation, and you can write computer programs in 
implementations of ECMAScript.  When we speak for brevity of ECMAScript as 
if it were a programming language (instead of a standard for them), we 
actually implicitly mean *strict* *implementations* of ECMAScript.
 
>       »A Reference is a resolved name or property binding.

Note the marked word.  This is _not_ what “reference” means when talking 
about ECMAScript *implementations*.

Instead, as the anti-socially address-munging John G Harris *knows*, but 
trollingly pretends not to know *every* *single* *time*, it means 
“reference” as in object-oriented programming languages in general, which
is related to garbage collection.

    [For those reasons and others, I have John G Harris in my killfile;
     I respond to his baits only occasionally, so that he cannot confuse
     beginners with his half-wit nonsense.]

After an object has been constructed, it can only be accessed by the program 
through a *reference* to it, by which we (reasonable people) simply mean
*“a conceptual entity that refers to something”*.

There can be multiple references (with the same value) referring to the same 
object.  An object can be garbage-collected (after a potential destructor 
has been called to release resources used by the object¹): the memory 
reserved for its data can be “freed”, to be reservable again for other 
data/objects, if there are no more references to it, because then the 
program cannot access it anymore anyway.  (This wording and similar ones can 
be found in every description of garbage collection.)

> [tl;dr]

_______
¹ ECMAScript has no built-in concept of a destructor (yet).  In ECMAScript
  implementations, a destructor to release resources has to be called
  explicitly, by the programmer.  However, many public APIs usable with
  ECMAScript implementations are usually designed so that resources are
  automatically released, e.g. the handles for “File”s are closed.
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#34866

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 03:25:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>ECMAScript is not an actual programming language in the sense that you can 
>write computer programs in it.  It is a standard for programming languages 
>that requires implementation, and you can write computer programs in 
>implementations of ECMAScript.

Thomas has turned into a raving lunatic. He is saying that ECMAScript,
C, COBOL, Pascal, and Algol are not programming languages because they
have international standards!


  <snip>
>This is _not_ what “reference” means when talking 
>about ECMAScript *implementations*.

Says Thomas, as though there is world-wide agreement on this.


  <snip>
>*every* *single* *time*, it means 
>“reference” as in object-oriented programming languages in general, 

Except, of course, C++, where a reference is defined to be an alias.


>which
>is related to garbage collection.

A conforming implementation of the ECMAScript standard does not have
to implement a garbage collector. Garbage collection is mentioned only
in two non-normative notes. (Says Acrobat's Search.)


  <snip>
>After an object has been constructed, it can only be accessed by the program 
>through a *reference* to it, by which we (reasonable people) simply mean
>*“a conceptual entity that refers to something”*.

Thomas can't get his head around the idea that there is more than one
way to implement the standard. He insists that the pointer to an
object is named 'value' and definately not named 'pointer to value'.
(I'm using "pointer" to mean anything that can do the job of Thomas's
references.)

That's why I insist that it is totally wrong to shout at people for
saying that the value of a variable is an object.

  John

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

#34867

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 03:25:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>Instead, as the anti-socially address-munging John G Harris 

My headers include a Reply-To: header which contains a working
address. Therefore the From: header, snipped here, is irrelevant.

Incidentally, if you use the Reply-To: address be aware that your
e-mail must conform to the laws of the State of California and the
Federal laws of the USA, say the T&Cs.


>*knows*, but 
>trollingly pretends not to know *every* *single* *time*, it means 
>“reference” as in object-oriented programming languages in general,
  <snip>

Is that supposed to be the definition of "reference" as used by
Thomas?


>    [For those reasons and others, I have John G Harris in my killfile;
>     I respond to his baits only occasionally, so that he cannot confuse
>     beginners with his half-wit nonsense.]
  <snip>

More accurately, Thomas doesn't approve of me pointing out that he is
sometimes wrong. One of his problems is that he is not very good at
noticing flaws in his proposed designs, and insists that no-one is
allowed to differ.

  John

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

#34872

John G Harris wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 03:25:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>>Instead, as the anti-socially address-munging John G Harris
> 
> My headers include a Reply-To: header which contains a working
> address. Therefore the From: header, snipped here, is irrelevant.
> 
> Incidentally, if you use the Reply-To: address be aware that your
> e-mail must conform to the laws of the State of California and the
> Federal laws of the USA, say the T&Cs.

You have not the slightest idea what you are blathering about.

<http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>

(The allowance of this/your Usenet provider or any other person for
.invalid in the “From” does not make it any less anti-social.)

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

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

#34873

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 03:34:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 03:25:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>>Instead, as the anti-socially address-munging John G Harris
>> 
>> My headers include a Reply-To: header which contains a working
>> address. Therefore the From: header, snipped here, is irrelevant.
>> 
>> Incidentally, if you use the Reply-To: address be aware that your
>> e-mail must conform to the laws of the State of California and the
>> Federal laws of the USA, say the T&Cs.
>
>You have not the slightest idea what you are blathering about.
>
><http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
>
>(The allowance of this/your Usenet provider or any other person for
>.invalid in the “From” does not make it any less anti-social.)

How can it be anti-social when eternal-september permits email
addresses I own and permits the addition of .invalid, and it's an
address you are not permitted to use anyway ? For goodness sake, it's
not there to uniquely identify a person, it's there to facilitate
communication, which is what Reply-To is for.

  John

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

#34874

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 03:25:38 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>ECMAScript is not an actual programming language in the sense that you can 
>write computer programs in it.  It is a standard for programming languages 
>that requires implementation, and you can write computer programs in 
>implementations of ECMAScript.  When we speak for brevity of ECMAScript as 
>if it were a programming language (instead of a standard for them), we 
>actually implicitly mean *strict* *implementations* of ECMAScript.
  <snip>

There is a flaw in that argument. First, ECMA-262's title is 
  "ECMAScript 2017 Language Specification"
not
  "Standard for programming languages".

Second, ECMA-262 is extremely detailed. As a result, any source text
that obeys the ECMA-262 rules will do the same things in any
conforming product. So which language is the source text written in?
Does it have a name? Is the name one product's implementation? Surely
the only sensible answer is that it is an ECMAScript program written
in the ECMAScript language, even if it never goes near a conforming
product.

Third, if the language resides in each conforming product then every
web site's home page should declare
  "This site can be viewed with browser " ... .
Ugh!

  John

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

#34871

Stefan Ram wrote:

> http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/zuweisungswirkung_javascript
> 
>   . That section contains a simplified analysis of the
>   mechanics of assignment to a global name in JavaScript
>   using JavaScript's concept of a reference (simplified).

    [The referred article is in German, which is my native language.]

Unfortunately unsurprisingly, that article is *factually* *wrong* in many 
ways.  Indeed, is is that strewn with misconceptions using ad-hoc invented 
fantasy terminology (such as „globale Einträge“ “global entries” and „Echte 
Eintragsausdrücke“ “true entry-expressions”) that it would be faster to say 
what is remotely right in it than what is wrong.  It is a complete waste of 
time to read it, except maybe as yet another example of 
<https://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html>.

For example,

  (a = 3 + 4) - 2 === 5

_not_ because a === 7 would be the "effect" („Wirkung“) of the assignment as 
the author believes and wants us to believe, but because the *evaluation 
result* of the *right-hand* side of an assignment operation is its 
evaluation *result* (see ES 2017, § 12.15.4 [1]; note that it says “Return 
*rval*”, and has *always* said something to that effect).

The right-hand side here is the expression “3 + 4” whose evaluation result 
is “7”.  So *that* is the result of the assignment expression.

The entire expression is evaluated as follows:

  1. (a = (3 + 4)) - 2 === 5
  2. (a = 7) - 2 === 5
  3. 7 - 2 === 5
  4. 5 === 5
  5. true

And _not_:

  1. (a = (3 + 4)) - 2 === 5
  2. (a = 7) - 2 === 5
  3. a - 2 === 5
  4. 7 - 2 === 5
  5. 5 === 5
  6. true

As I have explained before (here and in de.comp.lang.javascript),
this difference may be subtle, but it is important.  For example:

  /* Afterwards, “o” refers to an object with a read-only “a” property */
  var o = Object.create(null, {a: {value: 42}});

  /* in non-strict mode */
  /* true */
  console.log((o.a = 3 + 4) - 2 === 5);

  /* false; contrary to what one might intuitively expect */
  console.log((o.a = 3 + 4) - 2 === 40);

BTW, this behavior is true of other programming languages as well.
(Why that is so, I actually do not know.)


[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/8.0/#sec-assignment-operators-runtime-semantics-evaluation>
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#34847

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 02:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:02:57 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
><snip>
>> > There are no pointers in JS, not even near.  
>> 
>> You are saying that the machine instructions when a program is
>> executing *never* have a register or field containing the address of
>> another field ?
>
>You are conflating JS with the implementation of a JS runtime.

No I'm not. I'm talking about implementations of ES. 99.999999% of
them will use pointers, e.g to point to newly allocated free store.

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

#34849

On Monday, 16 April 2018 20:37:46 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 02:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >On Monday, 16 April 2018 11:02:57 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> ><snip>
> >> > There are no pointers in JS, not even near.  
> >> 
> >> You are saying that the machine instructions when a program is
> >> executing *never* have a register or field containing the address of
> >> another field ?
> >
> >You are conflating JS with the implementation of a JS runtime.
> 
> No I'm not. I'm talking about implementations of ES. 99.999999% of
> them will use pointers, e.g to point to newly allocated free store.

That's still your JS *runtime* implementation and not the JS language itself.
You really do not see the difference?  That a compiler or interpreter needn't
be written in the same language that they process?  Meanwhile, and funnily
enough, you are the one who has claimed that one needn't use a language with
pointers and similar to implement a compiler or a runtime: which is correct.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#34852

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

  <snip>
>That's still your JS *runtime* implementation and not the JS language itself.

I say I'm talking about implementation and you say no, you are talking
about implementation, then I say I'm talking about implementation and
you say no, you are talking about implementation, ...

>You really do not see the difference?
  <snip>
>*Plonk*

Thank goodness you've plonked. No more criticising me for saying what
you say I ought to say.

  John

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

#34853

On Tuesday, 17 April 2018 10:52:35 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>   <snip>
> >That's still your JS *runtime* implementation and not the JS language itself.
> 
> I say I'm talking about implementation and you say no, you are talking
> about implementation, then I say I'm talking about implementation and
> you say no, you are talking about implementation, ...

Incompetent and liar.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#34856

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 03:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 17 April 2018 10:52:35 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
>> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>>   <snip>
>> >That's still your JS *runtime* implementation and not the JS language itself.
>> 
>> I say I'm talking about implementation and you say no, you are talking
>> about implementation, then I say I'm talking about implementation and
>> you say no, you are talking about implementation, ...
>
>Incompetent and liar.
>
>*Plonk*

All right, you insist on talking about the ES language so here goes :

In ES the values of variables and properties can NOT be references nor
can they be pointers nor can they be anything resembling references or
pointers.

Does that conform to your rules for what people can talk about here ?

  John

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web