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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #27979 > unrolled thread

Re: Style: new String( "abc" )

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-06-03 22:37 +0100
    Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-06-04 10:49 +0200
      Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-06-04 10:43 -0700
        Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-04 18:49 +0100
      Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 13:37 -0700
    Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-04 18:49 +0200
      Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-06-04 18:47 +0100
    Re: Style: new String( "abc" ) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-07 18:09 +1000

#27979 — Re: Style: new String( "abc" )

In comp.lang.javascript message <new-style-20150602185946@ram.dialup.fu-
berlin.de>, Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:07:44, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-
berlin.de> posted:

>  For example, I consider the following piece of code:
>
>{ "abc".charAt( 0 );
>  "abc".charAt( 1 );
>  "abc".charAt( 2 ); }
>
>  (Of course, the example with ›"abc".charAt( 0 );‹ is nonsense.)

Why?

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.  Mail via homepage.  Turnpike v6.05  MIME.
  Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
  Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27980

Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 03 jun
2015 in comp.lang.javascript: 

> In comp.lang.javascript message <new-style-20150602185946@ram.dialup.fu-
> berlin.de>, Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:07:44, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-
> berlin.de> posted:
> 
>>  For example, I consider the following piece of code:
>>
>>{ "abc".charAt( 0 );
>>  "abc".charAt( 1 );
>>  "abc".charAt( 2 ); }
>>
>>  (Of course, the example with "abc".charAt( 0 ); is nonsense.)
> 
> Why?

Because text, even sourcecode, is just data, it 'has' no sense.

Sense comes from interpretation, 
then, at the hand of an intelligent being, 
'it' might 'make' sense.

Our common friend, yes the one with the Vulcan ears,
recently quoted [too consized] the wize words of 
Leonard Horatio McCoy, MD, born in 2227:

"The data about Earth speaks for itself" Selv's thin, angry voice came
back. "No data speaks for itself," 

McCoy said, forceful. "Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom 'speaks 
for itself' almost always translates as "If I don't say something about 
this, no one will notice it." Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with 
second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don't 
understand our language and this is made especially clear by some of the 
material you claim to be 'translating' from Earth publications: an Andorian 
spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. 
Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood 
sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what majorleague football is for. 

btw, wouldn't "forcefully' be more correct here and has English become more 
sloppy itself in the 23 c. ce.?

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

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

#27983

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:49:06 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

[snip]

>"The data about Earth speaks for itself" Selv's thin, angry voice came
>back. "No data speaks for itself," 
>
>McCoy said, forceful. "Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom 'speaks 

[snip]
>btw, wouldn't "forcefully' be more correct here and has English become more 
>sloppy itself in the 23 c. ce.?

     No.  "forcefully" is correct if referring to how McCoy is
speaking.  "forceful" is correct if referring to McCoy.  The
distinction is between McCoy speaking forcefully and McCoy being
forceful.

     There is not much difference in meaning, but McCoy could have
been being forceful in more ways than speech.  For example, he might
have been emphasising his point with hand gestures.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#27985

In article <qb31nad8o33ssakjos33h3371rg6jji0cp@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko
<genew@telus.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:49:06 +0200, "Evertjan."
><exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>"The data about Earth speaks for itself" Selv's thin, angry voice came
>>back. "No data speaks for itself," 
>>
>>McCoy said, forceful. "Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom 'speaks 
>
>[snip]
>>btw, wouldn't "forcefully' be more correct here and has English become more 
>>sloppy itself in the 23 c. ce.?
>
>     No.  "forcefully" is correct if referring to how McCoy is
>speaking.  "forceful" is correct if referring to McCoy.  The
>distinction is between McCoy speaking forcefully and McCoy being
>forceful.
>
>     There is not much difference in meaning, but McCoy could have
>been being forceful in more ways than speech.  For example, he might
>have been emphasising his point with hand gestures.

It's because "forceful" is an adjective being applied to an object or
person. That may be converted to the adverb "forcefully" by appending
"ly" in which case it then applies to a verb.

-- 
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a
friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly
attend first night, will attend second...  if there is one." - Winston
Churchill, in response.

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

#27997

Evertjan. wrote:
>> "No data speaks for itself," McCoy said, forceful. [ ... ]
> btw, wouldn't "forcefully' be more correct here and has English become more 
> sloppy itself in the 23 c. ce.?

Both Gene and Tim had good answers to this, but an example might make
this clearer:

If it had been

| "No data speaks for itself," McCoy said, happy in the knowledge that
| he never had to speak to Spock again.

(sorry, don't know the story, just day-dreaming...)

then one wouldn't think twice about it.  The sentence just feels natural.  But in fact, that whole second phrase serves as an adjective, and can be
boiled down to its first word:

| "No data speaks for itself," McCoy said, happy.

That feels a little less common to a native English speaker, but it's not 
entirely unfamiliar.  I think the reason this is easier to swallow than
"forceful" is that the change from "forceful" to "forcefully" is simply
and extension of the sounds.  It feels as though something's been left off.
Whereas going from "happy" to "happily" involves a more radical shift, and
so does not give the same impression.

  -- Scott

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

#27982

Stefan Ram wrote:

>   This shows that it is more difficult to »program« people
>   than to program computers.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be better not to try to “program” 
people in the first place?

Score adjusted

-- 
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]

#27984

In article <2693401.TQ2tchSuh6@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>>   This shows that it is more difficult to »program« people
>>   than to program computers.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that it might be better not to try to “program” 
>people in the first place?

On this NG, you are the person most in need of this advice.

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

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

#28018

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 01:14 am, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Dr J R Stockton <reply1500@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>>In comp.lang.javascript message <new-style-20150602185946@ram.dialup.fu-
>>berlin.de>, Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:07:44, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-
>>berlin.de> posted:
>>>For example, I consider the following piece of code:
>>>{ "abc".charAt( 0 );
>>>  "abc".charAt( 1 );
>>>  "abc".charAt( 2 ); }
>>>  (Of course, the example with »"abc".charAt( 0 );« is nonsense.)
>>Why?
> 
>   The only reason I wrote this sentence was a defensive one:
>   I expected answers from people pointing out that this was
>   nonsense, so I tried to calm them in advance in order not
>   having to write responses.

But it's not nonsense. 

>   The statement »"abc".charAt( 0 );« has no effect.

It returns "a", just like "abc".charAt(1) returns "b" and "abc".charAt(2)
returns "c". Why is the first one nonsense and the others okay?

>   Therefore, it rarely should be seen in production code.
>   Insofar, it is »nonsense«.

I don't think anyone would interpret your code snippet as being production
code. I think any reasonable person, and 99.9% of unreasonable people,
would understand that you were just showing a snippet of code, that it
would probably be embedded in a more complex example.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web