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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33005 > unrolled thread

Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics

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

Contents

  Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 11:49 -0700
    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-15 11:07 +0100
      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 11:52 -0700
        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 12:04 -0700
          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 14:52 -0700
            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 15:04 -0700
              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-16 00:09 +0200
                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 15:18 -0700
                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-16 11:27 +0200
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics <cyber@2trom.com> - 2017-04-16 15:08 +0000
                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-16 20:47 +0200
                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-17 10:02 -0700
                          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-17 23:46 +0200
                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-18 17:39 -0700
                              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-19 11:25 +1000
                                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2017-04-19 07:30 +0100
                                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-19 12:13 +0200
                                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-19 13:58 +0200
                                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-19 17:20 +0200
                                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-19 10:00 -0700
                                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics <cyber@2trom.com> - 2017-04-20 12:33 +0000
                                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-20 11:39 -0700
                                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 21:24 +0200
                                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-21 11:57 -0700
                                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-21 18:37 +0200
                              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-19 12:00 +0200
                                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-19 10:03 -0700
                                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 00:07 +0200
                                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-19 17:21 -0700
                                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-20 15:54 +1000
                                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 08:46 +0200
                                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 08:43 +0200
                                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-20 11:42 -0700
                                          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 21:37 +0200
                                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-21 03:23 -0700
                                              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-22 16:21 +1000
                                                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-22 12:15 +0200
                                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-21 11:58 -0700
                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics <cyber@2trom.com> - 2017-04-17 13:01 +0000
                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-17 20:28 +0200
                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-04-19 23:50 -0700
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-20 19:02 +1000
                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2017-04-20 11:24 +0200
              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700
                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 15:24 -0700
          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-17 10:49 +0100
            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2017-04-23 08:39 +1000
              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-22 15:46 -0700
                Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:29 +0100
                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 09:47 -0700
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 09:57 -0700
                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-24 11:09 +0100
                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 05:26 -0700
                          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 05:32 -0700
                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 05:36 -0700
                              Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 05:44 -0700
                          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-24 15:12 +0100
                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 10:12 -0700
                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 09:49 -0700
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-24 11:10 +0100
                  Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 12:07 -0700
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-24 21:24 +0100
                      Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 13:32 -0700
                        Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 13:41 -0700
                          Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 13:56 -0700
                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-04-25 10:41 +0100
                            Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-26 12:15 -0700
                    Re: Javascripts and highlevel computer language programming of graphics jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 13:27 -0700

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

#33077

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
> 
>      There is nothing special in this regard about me and English.  I
> expect that the same is true about evertjan and Dutch.  The difference
> is that I would not make sweeping statements to evertjan about how
> Dutch works.

There actually is something special about English. Most of the technical
literature and discussion is in English.

I am not a native English speaker either, but I have used English daily
for over a decade. So basically your logic is that because you do not
make statements about a language you probably cannot even speak I should
not make statements about a language that I have used daily for over a
decade.

Besides your point is an ad hominem anyway.

As for the actual point I would probably refer to JavaScript
implementations as JavaScript implmentations (sometimes with wrong 
capitalization if I am in a less pedantic mood). JavaScripts sounds
wrong because when people refer to JavaScript they are almost always
referring to the language as a whole and not to a certain implementation.
And it is impossible to have more than one JavaScript. If you define
something else then it is not JavaScript, and if you define something that
is not different then it is the current JavaScript and not a new one. In
both cases there can only be one JavaScript at most.

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

#33078

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:33:08 GMT, <cyber@2trom.com> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
>> 
>>      There is nothing special in this regard about me and English.  I
>> expect that the same is true about evertjan and Dutch.  The difference
>> is that I would not make sweeping statements to evertjan about how
>> Dutch works.
>
>There actually is something special about English. Most of the technical
>literature and discussion is in English.

     I was referring to knowledge of a language by a native speaker.
In that sense, there is nothing special about English and a native
speaker of it compared with Dutch (or whatever other language you care
to name) and a native speaker of it.

>I am not a native English speaker either, but I have used English daily
>for over a decade. So basically your logic is that because you do not
>make statements about a language you probably cannot even speak I should
>not make statements about a language that I have used daily for over a
>decade.

     No.  *Sweeping* statements.  He says that things can not be
right.  Yet I know full well that they can be.

     I was once responding to a RISKS post by Lauren Weinstein. Lauren
is a female name.  I had never seen it used otherwise.  Then, I
checked "her" Website.  The picture of the big man on a motorcycle
made me revise my idea.  I checked after that in names lists: Lauren
was always a female name in them.  Still, there is at least one man
with the usually-female name of Lauren.

     Is Gene always a male name?  (And it being my name, you would
expect I would know, eh?)  I thought so until I encountered a female
Gene at my church.

>Besides your point is an ad hominem anyway.

     No.

>As for the actual point I would probably refer to JavaScript
>implementations as JavaScript implmentations (sometimes with wrong 
>capitalization if I am in a less pedantic mood). JavaScripts sounds
>wrong because when people refer to JavaScript they are almost always
>referring to the language as a whole and not to a certain implementation.
>And it is impossible to have more than one JavaScript. If you define
>something else then it is not JavaScript, and if you define something that
>is not different then it is the current JavaScript and not a new one. In
>both cases there can only be one JavaScript at most.

     I probably would, too.  That does not make other ways of
referring to them wrong.  "The JavaScripts in these browsers have a
bug of ..." would be quite understandable to a native speaker.  People
tend to shorten things: "JavaScripts" is shorter than "JavaScript
implementations".

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33080

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> I was referring to knowledge of a language by a native speaker.
> In that sense, there is nothing special about English and a native
> speaker of it compared with Dutch (or whatever other language you care
> to name) and a native speaker of it.

I care to say that your presumption of someone you don't know to be a native 
speaker of some language or not is presumptuous. 

I care to say that your presumption that any specific native speaker would 
be the final test of what is concidered 'correct language' is presumptuous. 

I care to say that your presumption that such native speaker would be the 
final test of what is concidered 'correct spelling' is even far, far more 
presumptuous.

I care to say that your presumption that your presumed lack of understanding 
of Dutch would in any way be comparable to my inability to understand, speak 
and write English is laughable. 

I don't state that my English is as proficient as yours, or the contrary, 
but even that wouldn't make your statements about English correct by 
default.

Fact is that I am far to old to be a native speaker of JavaScript,
and far to young to be one of biblical Hebrew.

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

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

#33088

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:24:44 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> I was referring to knowledge of a language by a native speaker.
>> In that sense, there is nothing special about English and a native
>> speaker of it compared with Dutch (or whatever other language you care
>> to name) and a native speaker of it.
>
>I care to say that your presumption of someone you don't know to be a native 
>speaker of some language or not is presumptuous. 

     By your standards, aren't you being presumptuous of my ability?

     We rarely know for absolutely sure, but that does not mean that
one can not make reasonable assumptions and proceed from there.  This
is especially so when the probability of one's assumption being
correct is very high.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33087

cyber@2trom.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is considered polite here to post under one’s real name.

> As for the actual point I would probably refer to JavaScript
> implementations as JavaScript implmentations […]

Then you would be wrong.  JavaScript, or more precisely now, the *several* 
*different* programming languages that have “JavaScript” in their name, are 
_ECMAScript_ implementations.  See the ECMAScript Support Matrix for 
details.

> sometimes with wrong capitalization if I am in a less pedantic mood).

That would be even worse. (ibid.)

-- 
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]

#33054

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>Javascript is the language, not the/an implementation. 
> 
>      It can be either.
> 
>      "The JavaScript in browser XYZ is based on version x.y.z of the
> standard." would be an example of a reference to the implementation.

"The English spoken in India is different from that spoken on the Isle of 
Man" is about differences in dialect. To call that "The implementation of 
English is different" well, that seems to me a stretch too far.

>      I do not presume to instruct you in Dutch; please do not presume
> to instruct me in English.

I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should be so 
important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to instruct you on 
your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.

After all this discussion with you is in English for some very practical 
reason.

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

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

#33060

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:00:32 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>Javascript is the language, not the/an implementation. 
>> 
>>      It can be either.
>> 
>>      "The JavaScript in browser XYZ is based on version x.y.z of the
>> standard." would be an example of a reference to the implementation.
>
>"The English spoken in India is different from that spoken on the Isle of 
>Man" is about differences in dialect. To call that "The implementation of 
>English is different" well, that seems to me a stretch too far.

     We donot use the word "implementation" with natural languages. At
least, I have never seen it used that way.  We do use it with
programming languages though.

>>      I do not presume to instruct you in Dutch; please do not presume
>> to instruct me in English.
>
>I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should be so 
>important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to instruct you on 
>your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.

     No.  It is that your sweeping statements are flatly wrong, and I
can easily present counterexamples.  Even having done so, it does not
stop you from making more of them.

>After all this discussion with you is in English for some very practical 
>reason.

     Sure.  And your ordinary English is quite good.  However, when we
get into unusual cases, native knowledge really helps.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33062

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should be so 
>>important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to instruct you on 
>>your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.
> 
>      No.  It is that your sweeping statements are flatly wrong, and I
> can easily present counterexamples.

So I am wrong, Gene, because I was wrong before? 
And that, Gene, I am wrong just because you say so?

Thank you, Gene, btw that you think my statements are sweeping, whatever you 
mean by that, but of course because you are a self-declared native, that 
makes what you say about English right by default.

I submit that te correctness of writing "java scripts" with or without a 
space is not a matter of being a native speaker of English, because that is 
just writing habit and not speaking habit, so just a matter of educational 
indoctrination.

>  Even having done so, it does not
> stop you from making more of them.

Nonsense, Gene. I don't see why being wrong [in you eyes or in fact, that 
does not matter] would stop me from being wrong!

>>After all this discussion with you is in English for some very practical 
>>reason.
> 
>      Sure.  And your ordinary English is quite good. 

Thank you, Gene, for the complement, I was aware of that myself.

Perhaps you mean my extraordinary English is not that good?

> However, when we
> get into unusual cases, native knowledge really helps.

That is not the point. You declared that I should not make statements [I 
would rather call them arguments], because your Dutch is not that good.

And that is nonsense, because more importantly [inferring from your 
statement], your Dutch is rather worse than my English.

Foremost you do not know a thing about my linguistical nativity in the 
litteral sense.

And then your self-declared linguistical nativity does not prove a thing 
about your knowledge of English in itself.

However I do not presume that my English is beter than yours, but would 
prefer that we discuss on arguments and not on self-declared expertise,
whether on English or more importantly on scripting.

I suggest we now go on discussing javascripting [new-speak?].

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

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

#33065

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:07:36 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should be so 
>>>important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to instruct you on 
>>>your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.
>> 
>>      No.  It is that your sweeping statements are flatly wrong, and I
>> can easily present counterexamples.
>
>So I am wrong, Gene, because I was wrong before?

     Nope.  Each statement is wrong on its own.

>And that, Gene, I am wrong just because you say so?

     Nope.  You are wrong, because counterexamples understandable to a
native speaker can be given.

>Thank you, Gene, btw that you think my statements are sweeping, whatever you 
>mean by that, but of course because you are a self-declared native, that 

     "sweeping" means that they cover a wide area, as opposed to
something specific.

>makes what you say about English right by default.

     Nope, but I have studied English, and I pay attention to language
nuances.  Consequently, I can discuss the area.

>I submit that te correctness of writing "java scripts" with or without a 
>space is not a matter of being a native speaker of English, because that is 
>just writing habit and not speaking habit, so just a matter of educational 
>indoctrination.
>
>>  Even having done so, it does not
>> stop you from making more of them.
>
>Nonsense, Gene. I don't see why being wrong [in you eyes or in fact, that 
>does not matter] would stop me from being wrong!

     Non sequitur.

>>>After all this discussion with you is in English for some very practical 
>>>reason.
>> 
>>      Sure.  And your ordinary English is quite good. 
>
>Thank you, Gene, for the complement, I was aware of that myself.
>
>Perhaps you mean my extraordinary English is not that good?

     No.  I used "ordinary" in the sense of usual.

>> However, when we
>> get into unusual cases, native knowledge really helps.
>
>That is not the point. You declared that I should not make statements [I 
>would rather call them arguments], because your Dutch is not that good.

     Nothing of the sort.

>And that is nonsense, because more importantly [inferring from your 
>statement], your Dutch is rather worse than my English.

     No.  Although my Dutch is rather worse (actually, so close to
non-existent that the difference is irrelevant), it is not a reason
for making statements about your English.

>Foremost you do not know a thing about my linguistical nativity in the 
>litteral sense.

     False.  It is highly improbable that English is a native language
for you.  You make some errors that a native English user would be
extremely unlikely to make.  I have tutored people who have English as
a non-native language; I have gotten rather sensitive to the types of
errors that they can make.

>And then your self-declared linguistical nativity does not prove a thing 
>about your knowledge of English in itself.

     No, but given that such statements of mine are in English, and
making the reasonable assumption that I write my own posts, that does
demonstrate some knowledge of English on my part.

>However I do not presume that my English is beter than yours, but would 
>prefer that we discuss on arguments and not on self-declared expertise,
>whether on English or more importantly on scripting.

     Sure.

>I suggest we now go on discussing javascripting [new-speak?].

     Fine.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33066

On 20/04/2017 10:21 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:07:36 +0200, "Evertjan."
> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> 
>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>>> I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should be so
>>>> important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to instruct you on
>>>> your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.
>>>
>>>       No. [clipped]

It's like the Monty Python sketch where one fellow paid for an argument 
and the professional states that saying "the opposite" of what the 
fellow said constituted an argument ;-)

Andrew Poulos

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

#33070

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in
comp.lang.javascript: 

> On 20/04/2017 10:21 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:07:36 +0200, "Evertjan."
>> <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 19 Apr 2017 in
>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>
>>>>> I presume you are wrong, and see in general no reason why it should
>>>>> be so important for your self-esteem that I would not be able to
>>>>> instruct you on your English even if you feel incompetent at Dutch.
>>>>
>>>>       No. [clipped]
> 
> It's like the Monty Python sketch where one fellow paid for an argument 
> and the professional states that saying "the opposite" of what the 
> fellow said constituted an argument ;-)

Quite, if you believe in flying circuses and spagetti-monsters ...

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

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

#33067

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>makes what you say about English right by default.
> 
>      Nope, but I have studied English, and I pay attention to language
> nuances.  Consequently, I can discuss the area.

Your statement is so terribly wrong in conclusion.

It does not take self-defined or other expertise to be able to discuss an 
area, because you don't need a licence for discussing something, you only 
need arguments, preferably valid ones, and the above is not a valid one.

I have studied people and ants all my life, so that would, and I pay 
attention to  nuances, so that consequently would give a licence to discuss 
those areas, where others do not? 

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

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

#33079

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:43:09 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>>>makes what you say about English right by default.
>> 
>>      Nope, but I have studied English, and I pay attention to language
>> nuances.  Consequently, I can discuss the area.
>
>Your statement is so terribly wrong in conclusion.
>
>It does not take self-defined or other expertise to be able to discuss an 
>area, because you don't need a licence for discussing something, you only 
>need arguments, preferably valid ones, and the above is not a valid one.
>
>I have studied people and ants all my life, so that would, and I pay 
>attention to  nuances, so that consequently would give a licence to discuss 
>those areas, where others do not? 

     It is not a matter of licence.  (Say what you want, but others
may have things to say about what you say.)  It is a matter of getting
it right.  If you have truly studied ants, I who have not would be
foolish to contradict you on merely the basis of my opinion.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33081

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> It is not a matter of licence.  (Say what you want, but others
> may have things to say about what you say.)  It is a matter of getting
> it right.  If you have truly studied ants, I who have not would be
> foolish to contradict you on merely the basis of my opinion.

What nonsense, it is you that is taking licence by presuming on your own  
knowledge, and on my native language.

It would be foolish not to dare contradict someone who is a self-professed 
specialist on anything because you are afraid to be called foolish or 
because you do not value your own substantiated opinion as valuable.

Discussion is not to win, but to learn from. So I value your opinions about 
English, and Javascript, but I don't value arguments that your expertise or 
certification is an affirmation of such opinion.

And the inference to negative expertise of your opponent to affirm your 
stand if an fallacious argument called the ad hominem falacy.

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

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

#33083

Den torsdag 20 april 2017 kl. 21:37:15 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 20 Apr 2017 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > It is not a matter of licence.  (Say what you want, but others
> > may have things to say about what you say.)  It is a matter of getting
> > it right.  If you have truly studied ants, I who have not would be
> > foolish to contradict you on merely the basis of my opinion.
> 
> What nonsense, it is you that is taking licence by presuming on your own  
> knowledge, and on my native language.
> 
> It would be foolish not to dare contradict someone who is a self-professed 
> specialist on anything because you are afraid to be called foolish or 
> because you do not value your own substantiated opinion as valuable.
> 
> Discussion is not to win, but to learn from. So I value your opinions about 
> English, and Javascript, but I don't value arguments that your expertise or 
> certification is an affirmation of such opinion.
> 
> And the inference to negative expertise of your opponent to affirm your 
> stand if an fallacious argument called the ad hominem falacy.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

My god, you guys are anal retentive, you got stuck in a loop?

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

#33090

On 21/04/2017 8:23 PM, jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote:

> My god, you guys are anal retentive, you got stuck in a loop?

That should be "anally retentive".

Andrew Poulos

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

#33091

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 22 Apr 2017 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 21/04/2017 8:23 PM, jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> My god, you guys are anal retentive, you got stuck in a loop?

I see, Jonas, your position is the missionary one.

> That should be "anally retentive".

Quite, but only linguistically so.

And then, Jonas, you use the wrong NG to complain to your god,
this NH is about real creation.

btw,
is your god the one who is said to have created the universe 
and since then is preoccupied with whom, 
and even how,
we have sex,
in stead of curing all the sick?

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

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

#33089

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:37:10 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

[snip]

>And the inference to negative expertise of your opponent to affirm your 
>stand if an fallacious argument called the ad hominem falacy.

     You do so love to use the ad hominem argument against arguments.
It does not mean quite what you think it does.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#33027

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
> 
> <cyber@2trom.com> writes:
>>Actually those would be "Java scripts" in English. Even though in Dutch one
>>is not supposed to put a space between 2 words that are supposed to form 1
>>word in English one is.
> 
>   In English we have both »open compounds« (like »school bus«)
>   and »closed compounds« (like »housewife«, »lawsuit«,
>   »wallpaper«, or »basketball«).
> 

I thought that English only used certain established closed compounds
and that new compounds were supposed to be open or hyphenated. And
since "Java scripts" would be new I thought it was supposed to be
written as an open or hyphenated compound. 

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

#33029

cyber@2trom.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is considered polite here to post using your real name.

> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>   In English we have both »open compounds« (like »school bus«)
>>   and »closed compounds« (like »housewife«, »lawsuit«,
>>   »wallpaper«, or »basketball«).
> 
> I thought that English only used certain established closed compounds
> and that new compounds were supposed to be open or hyphenated. And
> since "Java scripts" would be new I thought it was supposed to be
> written as an open or hyphenated compound.

The proper terms are “(JavaScript) scripts/programs/applications” when 
referring to scripts/programs/applications, or (IMHO) “JavaScripts” when 
referring to multiple languages whose name contains “JavaScript”; but that 
still leaves ambiguity and has the potential for making wrong statements.  
See also the ECMAScript Support Matrix.

-- 
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]

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

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

csiph-web