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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #38247 > unrolled thread

Object values (continued)

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

Contents

  Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-16 14:34 +0000
    Re: Object values  (continued) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2020-03-16 14:52 +0000
      Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-16 18:19 +0000
        Re: Object values  (continued) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2020-03-16 20:06 +0000
          Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-17 19:01 +0000
            Re: Object values  (continued) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2020-03-17 19:55 +0000
              Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-18 17:29 +0000
    Re: Object values  (continued) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2020-03-17 12:48 +0700
      Re: Object values  (continued) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2020-03-17 17:51 +0100
        Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-17 19:03 +0000
          Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-18 07:20 +1100
            Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-18 17:29 +0000
              Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-19 14:21 +1100
                Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-19 11:12 +0000
                  Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-20 14:33 +1100
                    Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-20 09:21 +0000
                      Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-21 09:56 +1100
                        Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-21 11:18 +0000
                          Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-22 08:45 +1100
                            Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-22 10:10 +0000
                              Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-23 07:44 +1100
      Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-17 19:09 +0000
        Re: Object values (continued) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-03-17 16:21 -0400
          Re: Object values (continued) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2020-03-17 22:57 +0100
    Re: Object values  (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-19 05:32 -0700
      Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-19 15:26 +0100
        Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-19 18:16 +0000
      Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-19 18:15 +0000
        Re: Object values  (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-19 11:54 -0700
          Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-20 09:11 +0000
            Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-27 15:35 +0000
              Re: Object values  (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-27 09:59 -0700
                Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-28 14:09 +0000
                  Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-29 14:18 +1100
                    Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-29 10:40 +0100
                    Re: Object values (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-29 04:41 -0700
      Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-21 14:12 +0000
        Re: Object values  (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-21 19:45 +0100
          Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-22 10:30 +0000
            Re: Object values  (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-22 23:30 +0100
              Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-23 09:44 +0000
                Re: Object values  (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-23 11:19 +0100
                  Re: Object values  (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-23 05:00 -0700
                    Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-23 18:05 +0000
                      Re: Object values  (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-23 11:50 -0700
                        Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-23 19:34 +0000
                  Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-23 18:14 +0000
                    Re: Object values  (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-23 22:21 +0100
                      Re: Object values  (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-24 14:09 +0000
                        Re: Object values  (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-25 00:01 +0100
                    Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-24 01:18 +0100
                      Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-24 14:24 +0000
                        Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-24 15:43 +0100
                          Re: Object values (continued) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-03-24 11:03 -0700
                          Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-24 18:23 +0000
                            Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-24 22:19 +0100
                              Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-25 16:34 +0000
                                Re: Object values (continued) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-03-25 23:17 +0100
                                Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-26 01:27 +0100
                                  Re: Object values (continued) Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2020-03-26 18:58 +1100
                                    Re: Object values (continued) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-26 10:43 +0000
                                    Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-26 12:22 +0100
                                      Re: Object values (continued) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2020-03-26 10:08 -0700
                                        Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-26 18:29 +0100
                                          Re: Object values (continued) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2020-03-26 14:17 -0700
                                            Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-26 23:37 +0100
                                              Re: Object values (continued) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2020-03-26 16:40 -0700
                                                Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-27 11:38 +0100
                                  Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-26 18:11 +0000
                                    Re: Object values (continued) Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-03-26 19:41 +0100
                            Re: Object values (continued) "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2020-03-25 00:00 +0000
                              Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-25 15:05 +0000
                                Re: Object values (continued) "Mark-" <nospam@mapson.xyz> - 2020-03-25 20:12 +0000
                                  Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-26 18:09 +0000
                              Re: Object values (continued) John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-03-25 19:39 +0000
              Re: Object values  (continued) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2020-03-23 18:49 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#38247 — Object values (continued)

Thomas Lahn wrote, of an array :
> Technically it is not actually containing the objects, but just the 
> references to them."

I really cannot understand why some people are fixated on references.
There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share 
the same object. As a bonus, this way solves the large string 
problem without any extra code. As another bonus, 'undefined' makes 
its appearance entirely naturally.

Perhaps those who are fixated on references feel that their first
thought must be the only thought. Perhaps they feel that any other
thought must therefore be ridiculed and the author insulted.

Perhaps the other way is too advanced a software technique for them
to understand.

Perhaps they are just not very good at seeing more than one possible
solution to a problem.

Perhaps they got to grips with references in another language, such
as Java, and want to re-use their hard-won skill in this language.

Perhaps they feel that this language is wrong and should be 
'corrected'.

Perhaps they think that the more complicated the language the more 
salary they can get.

Perhaps they feel that it gives them a good excuse to shout at other 
people.

Or perhaps they have been told so firmly that it is so that they
daren't disagree.

Does anyone know why they are so fixated ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#38248

On 2020-03-16, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Thomas Lahn wrote, of an array :
>> Technically it is not actually containing the objects, but just the 
>> references to them."
>
> I really cannot understand why some people are fixated on references.
> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share 
> the same object. As a bonus, this way solves the large string 
> problem without any extra code. As another bonus, 'undefined' makes 
> its appearance entirely naturally.
>
> Perhaps those who are fixated on references feel that their first
> thought must be the only thought. Perhaps they feel that any other
> thought must therefore be ridiculed and the author insulted.
>
> Perhaps the other way is too advanced a software technique for them
> to understand.

Perhaps you should explain what you're talking about.

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

#38249

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:52:12 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

  <snip>
>Perhaps you should explain what you're talking about.

Haven't you noticed? If you say that a variable contains or holds or
is an object you will be screamed at by someone saying wrong, wrong,
wrong, and nine times wrong. I'm pointing out that the screaming is
based on a fallacy and wondering about the motivation.

  John

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

#38250

On 2020-03-16, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:52:12 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>  <snip>
>>Perhaps you should explain what you're talking about.
>
> Haven't you noticed? If you say that a variable contains or holds or
> is an object you will be screamed at by someone saying wrong, wrong,
> wrong, and nine times wrong. I'm pointing out that the screaming is
> based on a fallacy and wondering about the motivation.

No, I mean the bit where you said:

> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share
> the same object. As a bonus, this way solves the large string
> problem without any extra code.

What are you talking about there?

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

#38253

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:06:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

>On 2020-03-16, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
  <snip>
>No, I mean the bit where you said:
>
>> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
>> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share
>> the same object. As a bonus, this way solves the large string
>> problem without any extra code.
>
>What are you talking about there?

Oh, right. To summarise what I wrote here on 27 Apr 2019 : Don't think
reference to Object, think reference to Value instead. It's that
simple.

For the string problem, think of handing a primitive string to a
function. No-one has been criticised for saying that a variable's
value is a string, so the value is not reference_to_string. What
happens when a string is handed to a function? If values can't be
shared then the string has to be copied. Handing over a 1MB string to
a function then becomes expensive, especially if the function just
looks at the first character.
  John

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

#38256

On 2020-03-17, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:06:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
>>On 2020-03-16, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>  <snip>
>>No, I mean the bit where you said:
>>
>>> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
>>> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share
>>> the same object. As a bonus, this way solves the large string
>>> problem without any extra code.
>>
>>What are you talking about there?
>
> Oh, right. To summarise what I wrote here on 27 Apr 2019 : Don't think
> reference to Object, think reference to Value instead. It's that
> simple.

I'm not getting you. Whether you call it a "reference to an Object"
or a "reference to a Value" (whatever the difference between those
things might be), it's still a reference.

> For the string problem, think of handing a primitive string to a
> function. No-one has been criticised for saying that a variable's
> value is a string, so the value is not reference_to_string. What
> happens when a string is handed to a function? If values can't be
> shared then the string has to be copied. Handing over a 1MB string to
> a function then becomes expensive, especially if the function just
> looks at the first character.

The reason that nobody would be criticised for saying it, despite
the fact that implementations can indeed pass shared references,
is that the primitive types are all immutable.

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

#38260

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 19:55:46 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

>On 2020-03-17, John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
  <snip>
>> Oh, right. To summarise what I wrote here on 27 Apr 2019 : Don't think
>> reference to Object, think reference to Value instead. It's that
>> simple.
>
>I'm not getting you. Whether you call it a "reference to an Object"
>or a "reference to a Value" (whatever the difference between those
>things might be), it's still a reference.

To save you doing a Google search, here's what I told you a year ago :

 "Instead of Values holding a reference to an Object, make each
  variable and property hold a reference to its Value. Now there is no
  problem with variables that have the same Value."

That reference is right inside the code implementing variables and
properties and has nothing to do with what is in the Value field. It's
the content of the Value field that we're discussing. (Which, to
remind you, can be an Object.)

Some people say they would never code variables and properties that
way. Well, hard luck; other people might.


>> For the string problem, think of handing a primitive string to a
>> function. No-one has been criticised for saying that a variable's
>> value is a string, so the value is not reference_to_string. What
>> happens when a string is handed to a function? If values can't be
>> shared then the string has to be copied. Handing over a 1MB string to
>> a function then becomes expensive, especially if the function just
>> looks at the first character.
>
>The reason that nobody would be criticised for saying it, despite
>the fact that implementations can indeed pass shared references,
>is that the primitive types are all immutable.

Being immutable has nothing to do with it. If the value can be
implemented as a reference_to_string then you will be criticised for
not saying reference.

  John

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

#38251

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:34:50 +0000, John G Harris wrote:
> 
> I really cannot understand why some people are fixated on references.

In JavaScript, everything are objects. Objects are basically memory pointers
to a data structure. JavaScript treat those memory pointers as references,
and uses references as values - even for primitive values such as Boolean,
Number, String, etc. It's why we can call a method from a primitive value.
e.g. `("a").toUpperCase()`. Except that any changes to the object's
container (basically, the data structure), is ignored. e.g.

  var a = 123;
  a.prop = 456;
  console.log(a.prop); //undefined

> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share 
> the same object.

That's already the actual design of JavaScript. Object properties store
values, and those values are already references.

> As a bonus, this way solves the large string 
> problem without any extra code.

What large string problem?

> Perhaps the other way is too advanced a software technique for them
> to understand.

Not everyone here understand or even bother with programming languages other
than JavaScript.

Also, JavaScript is a high level programming language. Generally, high level
programmers who don't know low or lower level programming languages, have
many diffulties understanding them. On the other hand, low level programmers
who don't know high level programming languages, have less difficulties
understanding them.

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

#38252

JJ wrote:
^^
Your real name belongs there.

> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:34:50 +0000, John G Harris wrote:
>> I really cannot understand why some people are fixated on references.
> 
> In JavaScript, everything are objects.

Wrong; there are primitive values, which is *basic* knowledge:

<https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#sec-ecmascript-language-types>

> Objects are basically memory pointers to a data structure.

Wrong; objects *are* the data structures.

> JavaScript treat those memory pointers as references,

Wrong; it is exactly the other way around.

> and uses references as values -

Correct.

> even for primitive values such as Boolean, Number, String, etc.

Wrong.  This is *at least* implementation-dependent.

> It's why we can call a method from a
> primitive value. e.g. `("a").toUpperCase()`.

Wrong.  The expression

  ("a")

is being *JIT-converted* to an immutable String instance as if by the 
expression

  new String("a")

In this particular case, the parentheses even can be omitted (there are 
other cases in which the grammar requires them).

> Except that any changes to the object's container (basically, the data 
> structure), is ignored. e.g.
> 
>   var a = 123;
>   a.prop = 456;
>   console.log(a.prop); //undefined

In strict mode, the assignment

  a.prop = 456;

is NOT ignored, but throws a TypeError exception *because* a holds a 
*primitive* value, NOT an object value.

<https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#sec-putvalue>
 
>> There is a way to implement values that puts an object right inside
>> the value field, yet allows several variables/properties to share
>> the same object.
> 
> That's already the actual design of JavaScript. Object properties store
> values, and those values are already references.

Blind leading the blind.
 
>> Perhaps the other way is too advanced a software technique for them
>> to understand.
> 
> Not everyone here understand or even bother with programming languages
> other than JavaScript.

And you obviously do not even understand what you mistakenly think would be 
"JavaScript".
 
> Also, JavaScript is a high level programming language.

For suitable values of “high”.  In many respects strictly standards-
compliant ECMAScript implementations (e.g. excluding TypeScript and other 
transpilers) are very low-level compared to e.g. Python.

It would be a Really Good Idea[tm] if you stopped talking about things that 
you know nothing about.

-- 
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]

#38254

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:51:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>JJ wrote:
>^^
>Your real name belongs there.
  <snip>

Typical Thomas. Apparently, like crackpots and conspiracy theorists,
his whining about the world is the only way for him to *feel*
important and to get noticed. Why doesn’t he just get a life or FOAD?

  John

PS Plagiarism can be good.

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

#38257 — Re: Object values (continued)

On 18/03/2020 6:03 am, John G Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:51:43 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>> JJ wrote:
>> ^^
>> Your real name belongs there.
>    <snip>
> 
> Typical Thomas. Apparently, like crackpots and conspiracy theorists,
> his whining about the world is the only way for him to *feel*
> important and to get noticed. Why doesn’t he just get a life or FOAD?

Are you trying to validate yourself, in response to Thomas continually 
pointing out the factual errors in your posts, by questioning *his* 
mental wellbeing?

Andrew Poulos

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

#38261 — Re: Object values (continued)

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:20:47 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>Thomas continually 
>pointing out the factual errors in your posts,
  <snip>

Name me a proposed fact that Thomas has actually *proved* to be an
error. I don't mean by using an Ad Hominem fallacy, nor by a Strawman
fallacy, nor by simply denying it without evidence, nor by saying that
ECMA 262 doesn't apply to JavaScripts.

For instance, his argument in the present discussion was : Here's a
very bad way to implement it, therefore my way is the *only* way.

  John

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

#38262 — Re: Object values (continued)

On 19/03/2020 4:29 am, John G Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:20:47 +1100, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    <snip>
>> Thomas continually
>> pointing out the factual errors in your posts,
>    <snip>
> 
> Name me a proposed fact that Thomas has actually *proved* to be an
> error. I don't mean by using an Ad Hominem fallacy, nor by a Strawman
> fallacy, nor by simply denying it without evidence, nor by saying that
> ECMA 262 doesn't apply to JavaScripts.
> 
> For instance, his argument in the present discussion was : Here's a
> very bad way to implement it, therefore my way is the *only* way.

<snip>

You sound like the father of the one soldier on parade that's out of 
step, "Look, little Johnny is the only one in step."

Andrew Poulos

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

#38263 — Re: Object values (continued)

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:21:51 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 19/03/2020 4:29 am, John G Harris wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:20:47 +1100, Andrew Poulos
>> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>    <snip>
>>> Thomas continually
>>> pointing out the factual errors in your posts,
>>    <snip>
>> 
>> Name me a proposed fact that Thomas has actually *proved* to be an
>> error. I don't mean by using an Ad Hominem fallacy, nor by a Strawman
>> fallacy, nor by simply denying it without evidence, nor by saying that
>> ECMA 262 doesn't apply to JavaScripts.
>> 
>> For instance, his argument in the present discussion was : Here's a
>> very bad way to implement it, therefore my way is the *only* way.
>
><snip>
>
>You sound like the father of the one soldier on parade that's out of 
>step, "Look, little Johnny is the only one in step."

And I'm afraid you are beginning to sound like someone who is unable
to explain why reference_to_object is the *only* way to implement
object values. Note the emphasis on *only*.

  John

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

#38269 — Re: Object values (continued)

On 19/03/2020 10:12 pm, John G Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:21:51 +1100, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/03/2020 4:29 am, John G Harris wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:20:47 +1100, Andrew Poulos
>>> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>     <snip>
>>>> Thomas continually
>>>> pointing out the factual errors in your posts,
>>>     <snip>
>>>
>>> Name me a proposed fact that Thomas has actually *proved* to be an
>>> error. I don't mean by using an Ad Hominem fallacy, nor by a Strawman
>>> fallacy, nor by simply denying it without evidence, nor by saying that
>>> ECMA 262 doesn't apply to JavaScripts.
>>>
>>> For instance, his argument in the present discussion was : Here's a
>>> very bad way to implement it, therefore my way is the *only* way.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You sound like the father of the one soldier on parade that's out of
>> step, "Look, little Johnny is the only one in step."
> 
> And I'm afraid you are beginning to sound like someone who is unable

<snip>
</snip>

No need to be afraid. I, like you, am not an expert but, keep going, 
there may be one or two people left who don't yet realise you are 
polishing a turd.

Andrew Poulos

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

#38280 — Re: Object values (continued)

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:33:55 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>No need to be afraid. I, like you, am not an expert
  <snip>

But many of the people who wrote ECMA 262 *are* experts, and they,
like me, don't think references are worth mentioning.

  John

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

#38290 — Re: Object values (continued)

On 20/03/2020 8:21 pm, John G Harris wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:33:55 +1100, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    <snip>
>> No need to be afraid. I, like you, am not an expert

<snip>

> like me, don't think 

<snip>

There, right there... that's your problem.

Andrew Poulos

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

#38292 — Re: Object values (continued)

On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 09:56:10 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 20/03/2020 8:21 pm, John G Harris wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:33:55 +1100, Andrew Poulos
>> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>    <snip>
>>> No need to be afraid. I, like you, am not an expert
>
><snip>
>
>> like me, don't think 
>
><snip>
>
>There, right there... that's your problem.

I've reviewed your contributions to this thread and I notice a
complete absence of technical matter. Not even one teeny weeny
technical point. Are you sure your contribution is useful?

  John

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

#38295 — Re: Object values (continued)

On 21/03/2020 10:18 pm, John G Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 09:56:10 +1100, Andrew Poulos
> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 20/03/2020 8:21 pm, John G Harris wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:33:55 +1100, Andrew Poulos
>>> <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>     <snip>
>>>> No need to be afraid. I, like you, am not an expert
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> like me, don't think
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> There, right there... that's your problem.
> 
> I've reviewed your contributions to this thread and I notice a
> complete absence of technical matter. Not even one teeny weeny
> technical point. Are you sure your contribution is useful?

No need to question my contribution. Question your own attempts at 
polishing a turd.

Andrew Poulos

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

#38296 — Re: Object values (continued)

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:45:20 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>No need to question my contribution. Question your own attempts at 
>polishing a turd.

In other words, you are upset because I used Thomas's words to
criticise Thomas, who can do no wrong.

  John

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web