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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33861 > unrolled thread

Inserting a DIV inside another DIV

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

Contents

  Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-22 21:47 -0700
    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-23 12:08 +0200
      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-23 23:19 -0700
        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-24 08:58 +0200
          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-24 08:55 +0100
          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-24 23:16 -0700
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV tony@mountifield.org (Tony Mountifield) - 2017-08-25 09:04 +0000
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-25 15:54 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-08-27 23:43 -0700
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 11:04 +0100
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 04:02 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-28 06:24 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 07:42 -0700
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:45 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 15:13 +0100
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-28 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 10:11 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 07:00 -0700
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 18:24 +0100
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:57 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-08-29 06:51 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-09-02 11:18 -0700
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2017-09-11 19:57 -0300
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-12 05:30 -0700
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 14:37 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-09-12 06:15 -0700
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 15:44 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-09-12 14:51 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-12 16:38 +0200
                                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-09-12 20:20 +0100
                                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-09-13 18:47 +0200
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-13 01:20 -0300
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-25 14:33 +0200
            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2017-08-26 21:21 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 03:16 +0200
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2017-08-27 11:40 +0100
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-08-27 04:05 -0700
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 16:15 +0200
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 16:27 +0200
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-27 15:42 +0100
              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-27 14:10 +0100
                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-27 15:40 +0200
                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-28 10:50 +0100
                    Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-28 22:35 +0200
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-28 22:53 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 00:27 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 10:16 +0100
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 23:05 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-08-29 22:51 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-30 00:29 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 16:33 +0100
                      Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-29 09:57 +0100
                        Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-29 18:05 +0200
                          Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-30 16:33 +0100
                            Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-30 21:43 +0200
                              Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-31 10:08 +0100
                                Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-08-31 16:40 +0200
                                  Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-08-31 18:37 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#33861 — Inserting a DIV inside another DIV

I have a DIV, with id say "myid1", inside which I want to insert another DIV, say with "myid2".
I've got hold of the first one like this:

div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];

I'm unsure what to do after that. Do I appendChild to div, or do I createElement? What would the code look like? (and how would I set the inner DIV's id?)



Thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33862

bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote on 23 Aug 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I have a DIV, with id say "myid1", inside which I want to insert another
> DIV, say with "myid2". I've got hold of the first one like this:
> 
> div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];

let outerDiv = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];

Here you defined a pointer to that div.
 
> I'm unsure what to do after that. Do I appendChild to div, or do I
> createElement? What would the code look like? (and how would I set the
> inner DIV's id?) 

Meseems that before asking us,
you should ask yourself the logic of your Q.

Would the supposed innerDIV be a childnode of the outerDIV?

How would you define a pointer to the innerDIV,
if you didn't create it first?

> (and how would I set the inner DIV's id?) 

Do you need the id, 
or do you confuse 'id of' with 'pointer to'?

Did you try?

what about:

innerDIV.id = 'myInnerDiv';

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

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

#33867

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC+5:30, Evertjan. wrote:

> > I have a DIV, with id say "myid1", inside which I want to insert another
> > DIV, say with "myid2". I've got hold of the first one like this:
> > 
> > div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> 
> let outerDiv = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> 
> Here you defined a pointer to that div.
>  
> > I'm unsure what to do after that. Do I appendChild to div, or do I
> > createElement? What would the code look like? (and how would I set the
> > inner DIV's id?) 
> 
> Meseems that before asking us,
> you should ask yourself the logic of your Q.
> 
> Would the supposed innerDIV be a childnode of the outerDIV?
> 

I would think so, yes.


> How would you define a pointer to the innerDIV,
> if you didn't create it first?

I'm not sure what createElement does, if that's the question. I just encountered it for the 1st time couple of days back, in that earlier thread.

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

#33868

bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote on 24 Aug 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC+5:30, Evertjan. wrote:
> 
>> > I have a DIV, with id say "myid1", inside which I want to insert
>> > another DIV, say with "myid2". I've got hold of the first one like
>> > this: 
>> > 
>> > div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
>> 
>> let outerDiv = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
>> 
>> Here you defined a pointer to that div.
>>  
>> > I'm unsure what to do after that. Do I appendChild to div, or do I
>> > createElement? What would the code look like? (and how would I set
>> > the inner DIV's id?) 
>> 
>> Meseems that before asking us,
>> you should ask yourself the logic of your Q.
>> 
>> Would the supposed innerDIV be a childnode of the outerDIV?
>> 
> 
> I would think so, yes.
> 
> 
>> How would you define a pointer to the innerDIV,
>> if you didn't create it first?
> 
> I'm not sure what createElement does, if that's the question. I just
> encountered it for the 1st time couple of days back, in that earlier
> thread. 

Well, wouldn't it create an element?

[Well, and wouldn't it return a pointer to it,
because how else could you reference to it?]

> I'm not sure

Then you should make sure. 

Read the specs, and if they are to tedious, read the simplistic:

<https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_document_createelement.asp>

Having us spell it for you won't get you reading,
my [happily bright] grand-children already know that.

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

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

#33869

In article <XnsA7DB5B3E25BD7eejj99@194.109.6.166>, Evertjan.
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>bit-naughty@hotmail.com wrote on 24 Aug 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>> Would the supposed innerDIV be a childnode of the outerDIV?
>> 
>> I would think so, yes.
>> 
>>> How would you define a pointer to the innerDIV,
>>> if you didn't create it first?
>> 
>> I'm not sure what createElement does, if that's the question. I just
>> encountered it for the 1st time couple of days back, in that earlier
>> thread. 
>
>Well, wouldn't it create an element?
>
>[Well, and wouldn't it return a pointer to it,
>because how else could you reference to it?]
>
>> I'm not sure
>
>Then you should make sure. 
>
>Read the specs, and if they are to tedious, read the simplistic:
>
><https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_document_createelement.asp>

Simplistic or not, it's a useful site.

>Having us spell it for you won't get you reading,
>my [happily bright] grand-children already know that.

Yes, I have to say I'm puzzled that there are some here who seem
incapable of doing any basic research.

Of course, creating an element is not enough, if you want it to be
seen. You have to hook it into the DOM where you want it to appear.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#33870

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:28:19 PM UTC+5:30, Evertjan. wrote:

> 
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC+5:30, Evertjan. wrote:
> > 
> >> > I have a DIV, with id say "myid1", inside which I want to insert
> >> > another DIV, say with "myid2". I've got hold of the first one like
> >> > this: 
> >> > 
> >> > div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> >> 
> >> let outerDiv = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> >> 
> >> Here you defined a pointer to that div.
> >>  
> >> > I'm unsure what to do after that. Do I appendChild to div, or do I
> >> > createElement? What would the code look like? (and how would I set
> >> > the inner DIV's id?) 
> >> 
> >> Meseems that before asking us,
> >> you should ask yourself the logic of your Q.
> >> 
> >> Would the supposed innerDIV be a childnode of the outerDIV?
> >> 
> > 
> > I would think so, yes.
> > 
> > 
> >> How would you define a pointer to the innerDIV,
> >> if you didn't create it first?
> > 
> > I'm not sure what createElement does, if that's the question. I just
> > encountered it for the 1st time couple of days back, in that earlier
> > thread. 
> 
> Well, wouldn't it create an element?
> 
> [Well, and wouldn't it return a pointer to it,
> because how else could you reference to it?]
> 
> > I'm not sure
> 
> Then you should make sure. 
> 
> Read the specs, and if they are to tedious, read the simplistic:
> 
> <https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_document_createelement.asp>
> 
> Having us spell it for you won't get you reading,
> my [happily bright] grand-children already know that.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE" part that confuzzles me:

div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];

div2 = document.createElement("div");
div2.id = "myid2" ;

Now, is it:
div2.appendchild(div);  

...? Or something else?

I find that very confusing - you're calling something INSIDE div2 , instead of div2 being an *argument*!! I would have thought that if you want something inside "div", you tell it 1) what you want, and 2) inside what, i.e. BOTH of them would be arguments. ...Me not the OOP fanatic, remember....? THAT's the main reason for all the questions.....


Why did they do it this way (if, indeed, they have), out of curiosity?

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

#33871

In article <6711ac96-c627-4e0c-b267-6a7602e0cdc5@googlegroups.com>,
 <bit-naughty@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE" part that confuzzles me:
> 
> div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> 
> div2 = document.createElement("div");
> div2.id = "myid2" ;
> 
> Now, is it:
> div2.appendchild(div);  
> 
> ...? Or something else?

No, it's div.appendChild(div2);

You call appendChild as a method of the parent node, giving it as an argument
the child node to be appended.

> I find that very confusing - you're calling something INSIDE div2 , instead of div2 being an *argument*!! I would have
> thought that if you want something inside "div", you tell it 1) what you want, and 2) inside what, i.e. BOTH of them
> would be arguments. ...Me not the OOP fanatic, remember....? THAT's the main reason for all the questions.....
> 
> 
> Why did they do it this way (if, indeed, they have), out of curiosity?

Well, in object orientation, the methods (functions) on "div" (for example)
are the things you can do to that div. One of those things is to append a
child to it. You give it as an argument the child you want to append.

In general terms a method on an object obj is called like this:

obj.method(other, args);

Inside the method function, the keyword "this" is used to refer to the object
on which the method was invoked, i.e. the value of "obj".

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

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

#33873

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:04:46 +0000 (UTC), tony@mountifield.org (Tony
Mountifield) wrote:

  <snip>
>Well, in object orientation, the methods (functions) on "div" (for example)
>are the things you can do to that div. 

Another way to think of it : The object representing the "div" knows
how to do certain things; meanwhile you only know how to tell it to do
them.

>One of those things is to append a
>child to it. You give it as an argument the child you want to append.
  <snip>

The object knows how to attach a child to itself, so you tell it to.

  John

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

#33903

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 2:35:27 PM UTC+5:30, Tony Mountifield wrote:
> > 
> > Umm *bro*, if one should call you that, it's the "appending it INSIDE" part that confuzzles me:
> > 
> > div = document.getElementsByTagName("div")[6];
> > 
> > div2 = document.createElement("div");
> > div2.id = "myid2" ;
> > 
> > Now, is it:
> > div2.appendchild(div);  
> > 
> > ...? Or something else?
> 
> No, it's div.appendChild(div2);
> 
> You call appendChild as a method of the parent node, giving it as an argument
> the child node to be appended.
> 
> > I find that very confusing - you're calling something INSIDE div2 , instead of div2 being an *argument*!! I would have
> > thought that if you want something inside "div", you tell it 1) what you want, and 2) inside what, i.e. BOTH of them
> > would be arguments. ...Me not the OOP fanatic, remember....? THAT's the main reason for all the questions.....
> > 
> > 
> > Why did they do it this way (if, indeed, they have), out of curiosity?
> 
> Well, in object orientation, the methods (functions) on "div" (for example)
> are the things you can do to that div. One of those things is to append a
> child to it. You give it as an argument the child you want to append.
> 
> In general terms a method on an object obj is called like this:
> 
> obj.method(other, args);
> 
> Inside the method function, the keyword "this" is used to refer to the object
> on which the method was invoked, i.e. the value of "obj".
> 
> Cheers
> Tony
> -- 
> Tony Mountifield

Aah - *this* was the post that made it all clear, thanks Tony :)

Yeah, I've been reading up on OOP - I still think " appendChild (div, div2) " would have been great, as would have been the case in the days of yore, with C and what not :)


I got tangled up with all the rest of the fight going on, - and TLDR anyway.

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

#33905

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 23:43:18 -0700 (PDT), bit-naughty@hotmail.com
wrote:

  <snip>
>Yeah, I've been reading up on OOP - I still think " appendChild (div, div2) " would have been great, as would have been the case in the days of yore, with C and what not :)
  <snip>

That makes appendChild a global function so no-one else in the world
is allowed to use that name however desirable that might be. Yuk!

I don't know about C, but in C++ the function would be put in a
namespace. You would do " dom::appendChild (div, div2) ". For an
ECMAScript product you would do " Dom.appendChild (div, div2) ", like
the maths function Math.sin . It's still rather messy though.

  John

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

#33906

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 8:43:28 AM UTC+2, bit-n...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 2:35:27 PM UTC+5:30, Tony Mountifield wrote:
<snip>
> > Well, in object orientation, 
> > In general terms a method on an object obj is called like this:
> > 
> > obj.method(other, args);
> > 
> Aah - *this* was the post that made it all clear, thanks Tony :)
> 
> Yeah, I've been reading up on OOP - I still think " appendChild (div,
> div2) " would have been great, as would have been the case in the days
> of yore, with C and what not :)

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.

Julio

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

#33907

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.

Still waiting on that justification, let alone what you mean by "opposite", but I'm not holding my breath...

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.javascript/7yR6urAZypU/CF7Ucfj-BAAJ>

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

#33910

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:24:56 PM UTC+2, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Still waiting on that justification, let alone what you mean by "opposite", but I'm not holding my breath...
> 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.javascript/7yR6urAZypU/CF7Ucfj-BAAJ>

You wrote this:

<< So JavaScript is "Object-Oriented" because it has a set of features in
common with the definition of being Object Oriented. >>

That may sound reasonable to the layman, maybe... but, as I said, it is
just nonsense: you don't call a language OO just because there are things
that *superficially resemble* "dereferencing methods"...  Then I'll say it
again: whomever says JS is OO is talking unmitigated when not outright
dishonest bullshit.  There is even a name for this speculation, which was
initiated in the late 90's across the industry: "OO uber alles".

HTH,

Julio

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

#33918

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:24:56 PM UTC+2, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Still waiting on that justification, let alone what you mean by "opposite", but I'm not holding my breath...
> > 
> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.javascript/7yR6urAZypU/CF7Ucfj-BAAJ>
> 
> You wrote this:
> 
> << So JavaScript is "Object-Oriented" because it has a set of features in
> common with the definition of being Object Oriented. >>

> That may sound reasonable to the layman, maybe... but, as I said, it is
> just nonsense: you don't call a language OO just because there are things
> that *superficially resemble* "dereferencing methods"... 

Was that term either explicitly or implicitly listed in my list? 

> Then I'll say it
> again: whomever says JS is OO is talking unmitigated when not outright
> dishonest bullshit.

I don't believe you, and won't simply take your word for it.

>  There is even a name for this speculation, which was
> initiated in the late 90's across the industry: "OO uber alles".

What is the relevance here?

 
> HTH,


No. This is insufficient

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

#33908

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 04:02:47 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

  <snip>
> but the really devastating bullshit is to think
>that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it.

What he means is that JS is not *exactly* the same as Smalltalk.

What he has said is that JS is a Functional language whose main use is
to update a global data structure. He thinks that's a sensible thing
to say, or hasn't noticed what the language is used for.

  John

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

#33909

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:13:56 PM UTC+2, John G Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 04:02:47 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> > but the really devastating bullshit is to think
> >that JS is an OO language: it is not, it is the opposite of it.
> 
> What he means is that JS is not *exactly* the same as Smalltalk.

Exactly the opposite == not exactly the same only if you are an utter idiot.

> What he has said is that JS is a Functional language

That's indeed correct.

> whose main use is to update a global data structure.

Where I was rather explaining to you why banning OO is not the correct
thing to do, either, you stupid sucker.

> He thinks that's a sensible thing
> to say, or hasn't noticed what the language is used for.

More unmitigated bullshit and stupid lies: you do win the title of yet
another brain-dead idiot spammiung the world.  Well done.

*Plonk*

Julio

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

#33916

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 07:30:18 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:13:56 PM UTC+2, John G Harris wrote:

  <snip>
>> What he has said is that JS is a Functional language
>
>That's indeed correct.
>
>> whose main use is to update a global data structure.
>
>Where I was rather explaining to you why banning OO is not the correct
>thing to do, either, you stupid sucker.
  <snip>

a) He has now said that OO is completely wrong, and very useful.

b) He has ignored rule 1 of Functional programming :
     NO SIDE EFFECTS!

   Manipulating the DOM structure : side effect.
   Manipulating the filestore : side effect.
   Creating data and sending it to a remote computer : side effect.

   What else is ECMAScript used for?

  John

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

#33921

John G Harris wrote:
 
> a) He has now said that OO is completely wrong, and very useful.

I'm not sure what he *is* saying, but I'm pretty confident he didn't say that.

> b) He has ignored rule 1 of Functional programming :
>      NO SIDE EFFECTS!

Functional and Imperative paradigms are not mutually exclusive.

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

#33928

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:00:26 -0700 (PDT), "Michael Haufe (TNO)"
<tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote:

>John G Harris wrote:
> 
>> a) He has now said that OO is completely wrong, and very useful.
>
>I'm not sure what he *is* saying, but I'm pretty confident he didn't say that.

He said it in reply to me, but not in such a compact way, when I
commented on the YouTube video
  Object-Oriented Programming is Bad
that he quoted.


>> b) He has ignored rule 1 of Functional programming :
>>      NO SIDE EFFECTS!
>
>Functional and Imperative paradigms are not mutually exclusive.

If you say ECMAScript enables all three paradigms - Procedural, OO,
and Functional - then I would entirely agree. What it isn't is just
one to the exclusion of all others. I think he is saying it is.

  John

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

#33920

Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> John G Harris wrote:
>
> > What he has said is that JS is a Functional language
> 
> That's indeed correct.

I'd agree

> > whose main use is to update a global data structure.
> 
> Where I was rather explaining to you why banning OO is not the correct
> thing to do, either, you stupid sucker.

Would you be willing to link to where you talked about this?

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web