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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #36410 > unrolled thread

Objects what are they.

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

Contents

  Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 02:16 -0700
    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 02:40 -0700
    Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-25 09:12 -0700
      Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-25 18:37 +0100
        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 23:41 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-25 23:56 -0700
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:00 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 10:45 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 04:37 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 19:41 +0100
                Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 21:11 +0200
                  Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 13:23 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 23:32 +0200
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 15:11 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 15:24 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-27 11:52 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:17 +0100
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-27 05:00 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-27 05:06 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:08 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-28 05:03 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-28 18:11 +0200
                Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 03:43 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 14:11 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> - 2019-04-29 11:15 -0400
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 08:41 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@sympatico.ca> - 2019-04-29 15:16 -0400
                          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 15:56 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 16:08 -0700
                              Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 09:44 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 08:31 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-04-26 13:48 +0200
        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:25 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 00:30 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-26 01:06 -0700
        Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-26 07:41 -0700
          Re: Objects what are they. Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2019-04-26 15:39 +0000
            Re: Objects what are they. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-04-26 23:23 +0200
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 11:25 +0100
                Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 04:10 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 04:17 -0700
                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 14:39 +0100
                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 10:16 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-28 10:53 +0100
                          Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 07:08 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 11:03 +0100
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-27 14:43 +0100
          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-26 19:36 +0100
            Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-28 08:53 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 10:35 +0100
          Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-27 17:45 +0200
            Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-27 10:19 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-27 20:57 +0200
                Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 06:53 -0700
                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 15:08 +0100
                    Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 19:21 +0200
                      Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-29 20:06 +0100
                        Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 23:09 +0200
                          Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 10:39 +0100
                            Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 14:06 +0200
                              Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 05:26 -0700
                                Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 19:14 +0200
                                  Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 12:07 -0700
                                    Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 14:29 +0100
                                      Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-05-01 07:52 -0700
                                        Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 18:34 +0100
                                Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 18:27 +0100
                              Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-04-30 18:22 +0100
                                Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-30 22:25 +0200
                                  Re: Objects what are they. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-05-01 15:15 +0100
                  Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 18:31 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-29 09:42 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-29 19:42 +0200
                    Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-29 17:35 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 00:18 -0700
                        Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:00 -0700
                          Re: Objects what are they. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-04-30 06:16 -0700
                            Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:38 -0700
                      Re: Objects what are they. jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2019-04-30 06:21 -0700
            Re: Objects what are they. groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-04-28 08:43 -0700
              Re: Objects what are they. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-28 19:02 +0200
      Re: Objects what are they. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-04-26 23:07 +0200

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

#36456

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
>   <snip>
> 
> Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
> committing a disservice to the community.
> 
> In the hope that you might understand this time, I'll repeat what I
> wrote a few months ago :
> 
> A sensible designer would listen to his colleagues who say "My 
> grandad did it this way and so did his grandad, and so did his 
> grandad afore him, so we MUST do it this way. The sensible designer
> would then think for a few minutes to see if there is another way
> that is better.

There are idiots of all ages, and you are being as stupid as the worst
scammers there, whose goal is to get more stupid, ignorant, manipulatable,
obedient morons with brainwashing in place of culture and judgment...

> And there is! 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. Better still, it solves an annoying performance problem with 
> no extra code at all : very long primitive strings can now be passed 
> to functions without having to copy them. The Value is shared 
> instead.

And that, by the way, is *not even wrong*.

Julio

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

#36457

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> > 
> >   <snip>
> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
> >   <snip>
> > 
> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
> > committing a disservice to the community.

P.S.  Forgot to mention:

Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.

You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...

Julio

> > In the hope that you might understand this time, I'll repeat what I
> > wrote a few months ago :
> > 
> > A sensible designer would listen to his colleagues who say "My 
> > grandad did it this way and so did his grandad, and so did his 
> > grandad afore him, so we MUST do it this way. The sensible designer
> > would then think for a few minutes to see if there is another way
> > that is better.
> 
> There are idiots of all ages, and you are being as stupid as the worst
> scammers there, whose goal is to get more stupid, ignorant, manipulatable,
> obedient morons with brainwashing in place of culture and judgment...
> 
> > And there is! 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. Better still, it solves an annoying performance problem with 
> > no extra code at all : very long primitive strings can now be passed 
> > to functions without having to copy them. The Value is shared 
> > instead.
> 
> And that, by the way, is *not even wrong*.

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

#36460

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
>> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> > 
>> >   <snip>
>> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
>> >   <snip>
>> > 
>> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
>> > committing a disservice to the community.
>
>P.S.  Forgot to mention:
>
>Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
>implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
>fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.
>
>You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...
>
>Julio
  <snip>

No, you are the fucking idiot. Obviously you haven't bothered to read
section 6.1 of ECMA 262 where it says, very clearly, :


"An ECMAScript language value is a value that is characterized by an
ECMAScript language type."

  and

"The ECMAScript language types are Undefined, Null, Boolean, String,
Symbol, Number, and Object."


It looks as though you think that "JavaScript" is a variant of Java, a
language where a value can be a reference. I'm sorry to have to reveal
to you that JavaScript != Java.

  John

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

#36463

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 15:39:27 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >   <snip>
> >> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
> >> >   <snip>
> >> > 
> >> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
> >> > committing a disservice to the community.
> >
> >P.S.  Forgot to mention:
> >
> >Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
> >implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
> >fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.
> >
> >You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...
> >
>   <snip>
> 
> No, you are the fucking idiot. Obviously you haven't bothered to read
> section 6.1 of ECMA 262 where it says, very clearly, :
> 
> "An ECMAScript language value is a value that is characterized by an
> ECMAScript language type."
> 
>   and
> 
> "The ECMAScript language types are Undefined, Null, Boolean, String,
> Symbol, Number, and Object."
> 
> It looks as though you think that "JavaScript" is a variant of Java, a
> language where a value can be a reference. I'm sorry to have to reveal
> to you that JavaScript != Java.

You simply don't know what you are talking about, or how to read the spec
for that matter.  But I'll let Thomas, if he likes, to get into details
about that.

I am rather pissed off by your usual trolling and intentional disrespect,
not by your utter incompetence: the latter is your problem, the former and
how you keep trolling not just this group but an entire professional category
is everybody's.

Julio

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

#36466

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Saturday, 27 April 2019 15:39:27 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
>> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> >> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >   <snip>
>> >> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
>> >> >   <snip>
>> >> > 
>> >> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
>> >> > committing a disservice to the community.
>> >
>> >P.S.  Forgot to mention:
>> >
>> >Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
>> >implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
>> >fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.
>> >
>> >You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...
>> >
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> No, you are the fucking idiot. Obviously you haven't bothered to read
>> section 6.1 of ECMA 262 where it says, very clearly, :
>> 
>> "An ECMAScript language value is a value that is characterized by an
>> ECMAScript language type."
>> 
>>   and
>> 
>> "The ECMAScript language types are Undefined, Null, Boolean, String,
>> Symbol, Number, and Object."
>> 
>> It looks as though you think that "JavaScript" is a variant of Java, a
>> language where a value can be a reference. I'm sorry to have to reveal
>> to you that JavaScript != Java.
>
>You simply don't know what you are talking about, or how to read the spec
>for that matter.  

I note that you aren't brave enough to explain what you think those
sentences mean, or how you think I've misread them.


>But I'll let Thomas, if he likes, to get into details
>about that.

The man who says that sentences in the Standard that are inconvenient
are not relevant to conforming JavaScript products.

Thomas says Julio is a Troll. Do you think he's right?


>I am rather pissed off by your usual trolling and intentional disrespect,

I think many of your readers are rather pissed off by your many
foul-mouthed diatribes, backed up with no evidence at all.


>not by your utter incompetence: the latter is your problem,

As you know, Thomas says that such assertions must be backed up by
evidence.


>the former and
>how you keep trolling not just this group but an entire professional category
>is everybody's.

Should I respect Thomas and Julio who think that hurling insults is
the way to conduct a technical discussion? No, and I don't.

I've met many professional programmers. Some are very, very, good.
Some, a greater number unfortunately, are arrogent loud-mouths.
Respect belongs to a person, not to a profession.

HTH

  John

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

#36477

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 11:53:17 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 15:39:27 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
> >> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >> >> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >   <snip>
> >> >> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
> >> >> >   <snip>
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
> >> >> > committing a disservice to the community.
> >> >
> >> >P.S.  Forgot to mention:
> >> >
> >> > Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
> >> > implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
> >> > fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.
> >> >
> >> > You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...
> >> >
> >>   <snip>
> >> 
> >> No, you are the fucking idiot. Obviously you haven't bothered to read
> >> section 6.1 of ECMA 262 where it says, very clearly, :
> >> 
> >> "An ECMAScript language value is a value that is characterized by an
> >> ECMAScript language type."
> >> 
> >>   and
> >> 
> >> "The ECMAScript language types are Undefined, Null, Boolean, String,
> >> Symbol, Number, and Object."
> >> 
> >> It looks as though you think that "JavaScript" is a variant of Java, a
> >> language where a value can be a reference. I'm sorry to have to reveal
> >> to you that JavaScript != Java.
> >
> > You simply don't know what you are talking about, or how to read the spec
> > for that matter.
> 
> I note that you aren't brave enough to explain what you think those
> sentences mean, or how you think I've misread them.

You notice shit, and that's still your problem.

The short answer is: objects are NOT values in JS, and you just have
NO idea what you are talking about.  Indeed, Thomas was spot on in
introducing the notion of *reference*, while you not only didn't know
the answer, you even mistake it for something implementation level,
which again means you just do NOT know what you are talking about.
Then the arrogance, the lack of respect, eventually the frauds...

> > But I'll let Thomas, if he likes, to get into details
> > about that.
> 
> The man who says that
<snip>

Fuck off: he may be wrong on many things, and I may be too, but the one with
ad personam, denial and plain lies again is you.

> Respect belongs to a person, not to a profession.

That is the opposite of true: you sir have been brainwashed, at best.

HTH,

Julio

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

#36497

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

>On Sunday, 28 April 2019 11:53:17 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
>> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 15:39:27 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
>> >> <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, 27 April 2019 13:10:35 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio  wrote:
>> >> >> On Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:25:33 UTC+2, John G Harris  wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 23:23:08 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> >> >> > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >   <snip>
>> >> >> > >What is returned is a *reference* to an object
>> >> >> >   <snip>
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Thomas, please stop insisting on a bad implementation. You are
>> >> >> > committing a disservice to the community.
>> >> >
>> >> >P.S.  Forgot to mention:
>> >> >
>> >> > Idiot, that's how the language works, it's the semantics, not an
>> >> > implementation detail, and even less a bad implementation, in
>> >> > fact it's even quite common as an approach in language design.
>> >> >
>> >> > You fucking idiot, at least he *is* right most of the time...
>> >> >
>> >>   <snip>
>> >> 
>> >> No, you are the fucking idiot. Obviously you haven't bothered to read
>> >> section 6.1 of ECMA 262 where it says, very clearly, :
>> >> 
>> >> "An ECMAScript language value is a value that is characterized by an
>> >> ECMAScript language type."
>> >> 
>> >>   and
>> >> 
>> >> "The ECMAScript language types are Undefined, Null, Boolean, String,
>> >> Symbol, Number, and Object."
>> >> 
>> >> It looks as though you think that "JavaScript" is a variant of Java, a
>> >> language where a value can be a reference. I'm sorry to have to reveal
>> >> to you that JavaScript != Java.
>> >
>> > You simply don't know what you are talking about, or how to read the spec
>> > for that matter.
>> 
>> I note that you aren't brave enough to explain what you think those
>> sentences mean, or how you think I've misread them.
>
>You notice shit, and that's still your problem.
>
>The short answer is: objects are NOT values in JS, and you just have
>NO idea what you are talking about.  

I see that you are still not brave enough to provide any technical
evidence for your assertion.


>Indeed, Thomas was spot on in
>introducing the notion of *reference*, while you not only didn't know
>the answer, you even mistake it for something implementation level,
>which again means you just do NOT know what you are talking about.

The only evidence that Thomas has produced is a description of the way
he would implement it. Being Thomas, he refuses to consider any other
way, while maintaining that this is a discussion group.


>Then the arrogance, the lack of respect, eventually the frauds...

That's right : I'm quoting a false ECMA 262, not the real ECMA 262. 
In your dreams.


>> > But I'll let Thomas, if he likes, to get into details
>> > about that.
>> 
>> The man who says that
><snip>
>
>Fuck off: he may be wrong on many things, and I may be too, but the one with
>ad personam, denial and plain lies again is you.

I doubt if even Evertjan would say that quoting the Standard is ad
hominem.


>> Respect belongs to a person, not to a profession.
>
>That is the opposite of true: you sir have been brainwashed, at best.

Look up Harold Shipman.

  John

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

#36461

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 04:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

  <snip>
>There are idiots of all ages, and you are being as stupid as the worst
>scammers there, whose goal is to get more stupid, ignorant, manipulatable,
>obedient morons with brainwashing in place of culture and judgment...
  <snip>
>And that, by the way, is *not even wrong*.

Ah, a carefully reasoned argument explaining why you think I might
possibly be wrong.

Further comment on the other reply.

  John

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

#36439

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:41:04 -0700 (PDT), groovee@cyberdude.com wrote:

>On Thursday, 25 April 2019 23:07:51 UTC+5:30, John G Harris  wrote:
>
>> How then would you say which part of the document that event handler
>> should be associated with?
>> 
>
>
>registerHandler(blah, foo), where blah is something in the page, and foo is the function that'll be called.

There's nothing stopping you writing a function that does it this way.


  <snip>
>How in God's name is "addEventListener" a *PART* of document.getElementById??!!
>
>document.getElementById GETS something from the page, how the hell is it *returning an object*, and why??? Why is that necessary and why do it that way?

Because the program does not access the page. It accesses a data
structure, called the DOM, made up of objects that represent all the
parts of the page. You alter an object in this data structure and the
browser software alters the relevant part of its display of the page.


>And in fact I don't understand what "document.getElementById" is in the FIRST place!!

getElementById is the name of a property of the object named document.
The property's value is a function object. You can call this function
object by doing document.getElementById("blah") . How the function
does its job is not revealed to you.


>The document, ie. the HTML page contains ELEMENTS, not a function called "getElementById"...??!!

The HTML document contains Elements, but your program can only access
objects representing these Elements. One way to do that is to call a
property of the document object. The document object and its
properties were constructed before your program started.

  John

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

#36469

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 00:06:11 UTC+5:30, John G Harris  wrote:

> >
> >> How then would you say which part of the document that event handler
> >> should be associated with?
> >> 
> >
> >
> >registerHandler(blah, foo), where blah is something in the page, and foo is the function that'll be called.
> 
> There's nothing stopping you writing a function that does it this way.
> 

Could you please tell me how? :) I would LOVE to know that :)


> 
>   <snip>
> >How in God's name is "addEventListener" a *PART* of document.getElementById??!!
> >
> >document.getElementById GETS something from the page, how the hell is it *returning an object*, and why??? Why is that necessary and why do it that way?
> 
> Because the program does not access the page. It accesses a data
> structure, called the DOM, made up of objects that represent all the
> parts of the page. 


Ah *this* right here is kind of fucked up, IMHO. What's wrong with making life easy for *designers*, as I said above?? It's really good *Computer Science* I'm sure, but will probably make for pages that are a little....Inhuman, if you get my drift. NOT artistic, which, to me, is kinda going against my grain.


Thanks for helping me out, really appreciate it :)

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

#36472

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:53:29 -0700 (PDT), groovee@cyberdude.com wrote:

>On Saturday, 27 April 2019 00:06:11 UTC+5:30, John G Harris  wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> How then would you say which part of the document that event handler
>> >> should be associated with?
>> >> 
>> >
>> >
>> >registerHandler(blah, foo), where blah is something in the page, and foo is the function that'll be called.
>> 
>> There's nothing stopping you writing a function that does it this way.
>> 
>
>Could you please tell me how? :) I would LOVE to know that :)

It's just a wrapper function. For instance, if you don't like writing 
  a = b().c(ac).d(ad1, ad2);
where ac, ad1, etc are the arguments then 

  function doThingy(ac, ad1, ad2)
    {
      var ret =
        b().c(ac).d(ad1, ad2);
      return ret;
    }

Now you can do
  doThingy("one", "two", doIt);

The  var ret  part looks redundant, but it stops you getting into
trouble with the optional semicolon rules which can bite you if you
forget them.


>>   <snip>
>> >How in God's name is "addEventListener" a *PART* of document.getElementById??!!
>> >
>> >document.getElementById GETS something from the page, how the hell is it *returning an object*, and why??? Why is that necessary and why do it that way?
>> 
>> Because the program does not access the page. It accesses a data
>> structure, called the DOM, made up of objects that represent all the
>> parts of the page. 
>
>
>Ah *this* right here is kind of fucked up, IMHO. What's wrong with making life easy for *designers*, as I said above?? It's really good *Computer Science* I'm sure, but will probably make for pages that are a little....Inhuman, if you get my drift. NOT artistic, which, to me, is kinda going against my grain.

Think about it. What is an HTML document, alias page? 

Is it a lump of text? Useless to you. 

It it a screenful of pixels? You don't want to know. 
When the mouse is clicked Windows tells you the click's pixel
co-ordinates. Do you really want work out if that pixel is one of the
pixels in your Ok button, in your Refresh button, or in some
uninteresting part of the display?

Let the browser do these things. That's what it's for. Be happy that
it tells you what's happening in a way that your code can cope with.

  John

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

#36462

Groovee,

> document.getElementById GETS something from the
> page, how the hell is it *returning an object*,

It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned: By 
returning a *pointer* to it.

> and why??? Why is that necessary and why do it that way?

:-) Because what you are asking for is stored (in the document tree) as an 
object ?

And /why/ its stored as an object ?    Thats easy: Those things are 
flexible.   You /can/ just store data into it (and make it look like a 
run-of-the-mill (associative) array), but you can also create read-only 
"variables" as well as functions that can do anything you like.

> And in fact I don't understand what "document.getElementById" is
> in the FIRST place!!

Yes you do.    Its a function, and you're calling it.     The only thing is 
that all the functions that have something to do with the document are put 
into a box with that same name.

> The document, ie. the HTML page contains ELEMENTS,

Correct.  But it also tries to maintain the relations between those 
elements.    Which it does in what you named a "tree".     The root of it is 
called "document".  The other elements "hang" under it.

> not a function called "getElementById"...??!!

Why not ?     The only place that that function is usable is on a document 
(HTML or alike), so why not put it in the same box ?   Positive side effect: 
You won't be able to use it on something its not ment for (a non-HTML 
document).

Second positive "side effect" by naming the target first (document) and than 
the method (getElementById) you also gave it the area (scope) it should work 
on/in.    That means that "document.head.getElementById" will only work in 
the "head" area of the HTML document (and not the "body").

Compare it with trying to access the "href" propery of a "B" element.   It 
won't work, as the property doesn't exist.  The same goes for those 
functions - which, by the way, for objects are called "methods".     Have 
you ever tried to use the  "indexOf" (find a word in some text) method on 
something thats not a string ?   It doesn't work.   Why ?   Because a 
non-string object (yes, in the document model strings are objects too :-) ) 
simply doesn't have that method.

> registerHandler(document.blah, foo); (IF at all "document" is required!)

Yes, it could have been done that way.    If you only have a single 
document, and only one type of it ...

But you /can/ have multiple (though only one displayed), and there certainly 
are multiple types.  The HTML DOM is just one of them.  The XML DOM is 
another.

> Well, I guess MY poor little brain can't match Brendan Eich's :)

Don't worry about it.   When I started programming (in the time of DOS 3.3 
and it being single-task) it took me the better part of a year to figure out 
how the computer could run both the BIOS program (handling the screen, 
keyboard etc) as well as the program I just wrote.   Single task means /one/ 
program.  Running BIOS + my program = brain freeze.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36464

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 17:46:03 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:
> Groovee,
> 
> > document.getElementById GETS something from the
> > page, how the hell is it *returning an object*,
> 
> It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned: By 
> returning a *pointer* to it.

*That* is an implementation detail, you other resident fucking troll.

Julio

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

#36465

Julio,

>> > document.getElementById GETS something from the
>> > page, how the hell is it *returning an object*,
>>
>> It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned: By
>> returning a *pointer* to it.
>
> *That* is an implementation detail, you other resident fucking troll.

Feel free to come up with a reply that will answer the OPs confusal better I 
would say.


Oh wait.   Throwing accusations of trolldom towards people is /much/ easier 
than to think of something constructive yourself, isn't it ?  :-)

And by the way, I take it you either read nothing of the rest of the post, 
or just ignored it to have a reason for yourself to come up with your claim. 
Either way, you suck.

And you called me a troll ?    Kiddo, those people are a number of steps 
above you, as they need to know what they are talking about to be effective 
in what they do.   You ?   You just talk trash and hope someone believes it.


Oh, wait.  Now I remember who you are.  You're that kid who complained his 
ass off about how I responded in this newsgroup to a badly-described 
question (Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:34:54 +0200), and than used his mind-reading 
capabilities to tell me exactly what the OP was looking for.   But when I 
than confronted him with his bullshit he stayed /very/ quiet.  I wonder why 
...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36475

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 20:58:17 UTC+2, R.Wieser  wrote:
> Julio,
> >> > document.getElementById GETS something from the
> >> > page, how the hell is it *returning an object*,
> >>
> >> It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned: By
> >> returning a *pointer* to it.
> >
> > *That* is an implementation detail, you other resident fucking troll.
> 
> Feel free to come up with a reply that will answer the OPs confusal better I 
> would say.

The answer was given already: one gets a *reference* to an object.

And this is not even the first time this comes up, which is the reason why
I call you a troll, not just yet another self-deluded crank.

> Oh wait.   Throwing accusations of trolldom towards people is /much/ easier 
> than to think of something constructive yourself, isn't it ?  :-)

It's your spouting bullshit that is helping nobody... troll.

Julio

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

#36476

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 06:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Julio Di Egidio
<julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

  <snip>
> one gets a *reference* to an object.
  <snip>

No one doesn't. Try reading ECMA 262 section 6.2.4 to see why you are
wrong.

  John

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

#36484

John,

>> one gets a *reference* to an object.
>
> No one doesn't. Try reading ECMA 262 section 6.2.4 to see
> why you are wrong.

Actually, it does seem to confirm that he, by accident or not, has got the 
official ECMA name right.

[quote]
For example, the left-hand operand of an assignment is expected to produce a 
reference.

A Reference consists of three components, the base value component, the 
referenced name component, and the Boolean-valued strict reference flag. The 
base value component is either undefined, an Object, a Boolean, a String, a 
Symbol, a Number, or an Environment Record.
[/quote]

The "reference" record has a "base value" component which 'can hold' an 
object (making it a double reference/pointer).

But in the case I understood the above wrong, what /does/ it return (in the 
case of an object) ?   What is it called in ECMA circles ?

And by the way, isn't the above "Reference" the same as whats in VBScript 
circles known as a Variant ?  Sure looks like it.

Also, a bit strange to call a storage element which can hold all kinds of 
things besides a reference/pointer a "reference".  Thats just asking for 
confusion ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36487

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:21:46 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>John,
>
>>> one gets a *reference* to an object.
>>
>> No one doesn't. Try reading ECMA 262 section 6.2.4 to see
>> why you are wrong.
>
>Actually, it does seem to confirm that he, by accident or not, has got the 
>official ECMA name right.
  <snip>

But remember what was taken out of the standard a few years ago :

Appendix E :
E Additions and Changes That Introduce
Incompatibilities with Prior Editions

  6.2.4: In ECMAScript 2015, Function calls are not allowed to return
         a Reference value.

Initially, exotic, and only exotic, objects were allowed to, though I
don't think this was ever done.

  John

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

#36489

John G,

> But remember what was taken out of the standard a few years ago :

I can't remember what I never read I'm afraid.

>  6.2.4: In ECMAScript 2015, Function calls are not allowed
> to return a Reference value.

Who is talking about a function here ?    I'm not, but for some reason you 
are.  Why ?

Also, this was posted by you:

>  synths[i] = newSynth();

As far as I can tell that whatever is on the right of that equal sign - be 
it a function or something else - returns a reference/pointer to an object, 
which than gets stored in the "Reference" whatchamathingy on the left.

And yes, that means that /some kind/ of a reference/pointer is stored in 
there.  In this case to an object, but it could as easily have been to a 
string, array or something else that cannot directly be stored in that 
variable itself.

... unless you have a different explanation for me/us.

Fair warning: Although I do not know more about JS than the basics I have 
programmed in a few languages.

And by the way: That was a rotten thing to do: pointing us to read a a 
specific part of a document, and than /afterwards/ telling us that exactly 
why we shpould read it is not even valid anymore. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#36496

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:09:00 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
wrote:

>John G,
>
>> But remember what was taken out of the standard a few years ago :
>
>I can't remember what I never read I'm afraid.
>
>>  6.2.4: In ECMAScript 2015, Function calls are not allowed
>> to return a Reference value.
>
>Who is talking about a function here ?    I'm not, but for some reason you 
>are.  Why ?

Because that's what Julio was commenting on, all triggered by the much
earlier sentence

  "It does that in the same way a string or an array can be returned:
   By returning a *pointer* to it."


>Also, this was posted by you:
>
>>  synths[i] = newSynth();
>
>As far as I can tell that whatever is on the right of that equal sign - be 
>it a function or something else - returns a reference/pointer to an object, 
>which than gets stored in the "Reference" whatchamathingy on the left.
>
>And yes, that means that /some kind/ of a reference/pointer is stored in 
>there.  In this case to an object, but it could as easily have been to a 
>string, array or something else that cannot directly be stored in that 
>variable itself.
>
>... unless you have a different explanation for me/us.

Well, yes, I have. The Reference type is a "Specification Type". As
the note at the beginning of sec 6.2.4 says

  "The Reference type is used to explain the behaviour of such
   operators as ..., the assignment operators, and other language
   features. For example, the lefthand operand of an assignment is
   expected to produce a reference."

A Reference is never visible or accessible to a user's program. It is
used only to describe the semantics of code. In the case of 
  synths[i] = newSynth();
the right-hand side is said to return a record, of a particular
Specification Type, containing a value field containing the new
object. The left-hand side returns information saying where the record
value is to be put. Finally, the =, so to speak, calls a function that
puts the value in the place indicated by the Reference, a property's
value in this case.


>Fair warning: Although I do not know more about JS than the basics I have 
>programmed in a few languages.

ECMA 262 provides an extremely detailed specification of the semantics
of each element of the language, using a cascade of pseudo-functions
used only for specifying. It's a document that is not for the faint
hearted. It's even difficult to find where the action of new is
specified :-(

That's why it's important to correct urban legends; they can be
difficult to check.


>And by the way: That was a rotten thing to do: pointing us to read a a 
>specific part of a document, and than /afterwards/ telling us that exactly 
>why we shpould read it is not even valid anymore. :-(

The rottenness was a misunderstanding. It's only a very particular
(useless) use of references that has been banned.

  John

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

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

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

csiph-web