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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #37655 > unrolled thread

Lazy programmers guide to blizz

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

Contents

  Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 00:50 -0700
    Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-11-01 02:42 -0700
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 06:22 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2019-11-01 18:21 +0100
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 10:39 -0700
            Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2019-11-02 19:45 +0100
              Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 17:57 -0700
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 10:42 -0700
    Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-11-01 09:58 +0000
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 12:22 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-11-01 14:02 -0700
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 15:19 -0700
    Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-01 11:04 +0100
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 06:27 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-05 11:06 +0100
    Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 10:44 -0700
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 13:19 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 13:23 -0700
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 03:57 -0700
            Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 04:02 -0700
            Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 04:44 -0700
            Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-05 11:20 +0100
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-05 11:14 +0100
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 14:48 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-11-02 14:23 +0000
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 08:17 -0700
            Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-11-02 18:12 +0000
              Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 17:56 -0700
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-05 11:14 +0100
          Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 09:04 -0800
    Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Flng Fck <nothanks@invalid.invalid> - 2019-11-04 11:31 +0100
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 02:46 -0800
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2019-11-07 14:59 +0100
      Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 02:48 -0800
        Re: Lazy programmers guide to blizz Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2019-11-05 09:38 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#37675

Den lördag 2 november 2019 kl. 11:57:21 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den fredag 1 november 2019 kl. 21:23:27 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> > Den fredag 1 november 2019 kl. 21:19:56 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> > > Den fredag 1 november 2019 kl. 18:44:26 UTC+1 skrev luserdroog:
> > > > On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 2:51:05 AM UTC-5, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> > > > > It so boring writing if intervals using < > or > <
> > > > > And hard to read
> > > > > Why not simplify 
> > > > > 
> > > > > if(A inside.interval(144-159))
> > > > > if (A outside.interval(144-159))
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe there already is interval functions in javascript?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Alteratively for the operator fixated
> > > > > if   (144< A <159)
> > > > > if   (144> A >159)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know whichone i would prefer......
> > > > 
> > > > When I've needed something like this, I just write a function.
> > > > 
> > > >   function within( lower, x, upper ){
> > > >     return lower <= x && x < upper;
> > > >   }
> > > > 
> > > > The half-open interval is very common, eg.
> > > > 
> > > >   function httpOK( response ){
> > > >     return within( 200, response, 300 );
> > > >   }
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, (144< A <159) probably doesn't do what you think it should.
> > > > 
> > > > For the "outside" interval, just prefix ! (logical NOT) to the
> > > > function call.
> > > > 
> > > > For a more OO style, how about
> > > > 
> > > > class Interval {
> > > >   constructor( lower, upper ){
> > > >     this.lower = lower;
> > > >     this.upper = upper;
> > > >     return this;
> > > >   }
> > > >   inside( x ){
> > > >     return this.lower <= x && x < this.upper;
> > > >   }
> > > >   outside( x ){
> > > >     return ! this.inside( x );
> > > >   }
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > if( Interval(145, 159).inside(A) ) 
> > > > if( Interval(145, 159).outside(A) )
> > > 
> > > You people really fuck up things beyond  semantical an interval can not be inside a number.... It may be outside but you really love to add complexity to problems that is simple. An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
> > > 
> > > But why do feel the urge to change things so they do not make sense  the interval can never be inside A.....
> > > 
> > > It is utterly stupid...
> > 
> > So i repeat if (A inside.interval(128-144)) there is no need for anything else.
> 
> Maybe one should fuck the dots, paragraphs, blips and blops all together and make a semantical correct language that people could program out of the box.
> 
> if A inside interval 128-144.
> if A bigger then B.
> if A smaller then B.
> if A eual B.
> 
> A=2.
> do while A < then B and A length less then 10
> 
> 
> A++.
> done.
> 
> Maybe i make a parser for javascript one day, javascript has nice features but fucked up syntax/semantics.

Who knows maybe i end up programming my own script language in webassembler i guess that is possible.

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

#37695

On 02.11.19 11:57, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

[...]
> Maybe one should fuck the dots, paragraphs, blips and blops all together and make a semantical correct language that people could program out of the box.
> 
> if A inside interval 128-144.
> if A bigger then B.
> if A smaller then B.
> if A eual B.
> 
> A=2.
> do while A < then B and A length less then 10
> 
> 
> A++.
> done.
> 
> Maybe i make a parser for javascript one day, javascript has nice features but fucked up syntax/semantics.

Go ahead and use COBOL - this should better fit your needs ;-).

Seriously - I doubt you will ever do a parser. And the syntax of the
examples is are "fucked up":

if A inside interval 128-144

Why is "128-144" not an expression but a range here? Why do things to be
parsed as expressen "a minus b" and in other cases as "range from a to
b"? This is just illogical.

On the other hand:

if(A>=128 && A<=144)

What is "fucked up" here? There is no doubt about the exact meaning and
no context specific syntax.

And why is "if A bigger then B" better than "if A > B"? What's the
problem with comparison operators like ">" or "<" or ">="?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#37694

On 01.11.19 21:23, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

> So i repeat if (A inside.interval(128-144)) there is no need for anything else.

Then create your own language. There is no need to use existing ones for
you.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#37670

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 3:19:56 PM UTC-5, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

> You people really fuck up things beyond  semantical an interval can not be inside a number.... It may be outside but you really love to add complexity to problems that is simple. An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
> 
> But why do feel the urge to change things so they do not make sense  the interval can never be inside A.....
> 
> It is utterly stupid...

Well, I'm done. Have fun playing with yourself.

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

#37677

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
>An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
  <snip>

As I said, *you* write the function. Then you can define the ends of
the interval in whichever way is convenient for you. If you use
someone else's code it could be different and you will complain.

Again, why all this noise about new syntax. What's wrong with writing
inside(42, X, 93) ?
The only problem is the huge argument about whether X should be the
first or the second argument.

  John

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

#37678

Den lördag 2 november 2019 kl. 15:23:17 UTC+1 skrev John G Harris:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> >An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
>   <snip>
> 
> As I said, *you* write the function. Then you can define the ends of
> the interval in whichever way is convenient for you. If you use
> someone else's code it could be different and you will complain.
> 
> Again, why all this noise about new syntax. What's wrong with writing
> inside(42, X, 93) ?
> The only problem is the huge argument about whether X should be the
> first or the second argument.
> 
>   John

Nah John that doesn't sit good with my semantic, and probably anyone that never programmed would never be able to guess your intention "with that string".

On the other hand 99 out of 100, will be able to understand "interpretate"

if A inside interval 0-100.

Well they have to know "or guess" that A is a number.

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

#37679

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

>Den lördag 2 november 2019 kl. 15:23:17 UTC+1 skrev John G Harris:
>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
>> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>> >An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
>>   <snip>
>> 
>> As I said, *you* write the function. Then you can define the ends of
>> the interval in whichever way is convenient for you. If you use
>> someone else's code it could be different and you will complain.
>> 
>> Again, why all this noise about new syntax. What's wrong with writing
>> inside(42, X, 93) ?
>> The only problem is the huge argument about whether X should be the
>> first or the second argument.
>> 
>>   John
>
>Nah John that doesn't sit good with my semantic, and probably anyone that never programmed would never be able to guess your intention "with that string".
>
>On the other hand 99 out of 100, will be able to understand "interpretate"
>
>if A inside interval 0-100.
>
>Well they have to know "or guess" that A is a number.

What you want is the original version of COBOL. Then you write
  ADD A TO B GIVING C
This allows business-oriented people to understand what to write,
instead of the nerdy
  c = a + b;
Of course, you would soon get very annoyed about the amount of typing
needed.

  John

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

#37681

Den lördag 2 november 2019 kl. 19:12:15 UTC+1 skrev John G Harris:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Den lördag 2 november 2019 kl. 15:23:17 UTC+1 skrev John G Harris:
> >> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
> >> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>   <snip>
> >> >An interval is always a range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and 2 and 3.
> >>   <snip>
> >> 
> >> As I said, *you* write the function. Then you can define the ends of
> >> the interval in whichever way is convenient for you. If you use
> >> someone else's code it could be different and you will complain.
> >> 
> >> Again, why all this noise about new syntax. What's wrong with writing
> >> inside(42, X, 93) ?
> >> The only problem is the huge argument about whether X should be the
> >> first or the second argument.
> >> 
> >>   John
> >
> >Nah John that doesn't sit good with my semantic, and probably anyone that never programmed would never be able to guess your intention "with that string".
> >
> >On the other hand 99 out of 100, will be able to understand "interpretate"
> >
> >if A inside interval 0-100.
> >
> >Well they have to know "or guess" that A is a number.
> 
> What you want is the original version of COBOL. Then you write
>   ADD A TO B GIVING C
> This allows business-oriented people to understand what to write,
> instead of the nerdy
>   c = a + b;
> Of course, you would soon get very annoyed about the amount of typing
> needed.
> 
>   John

Nah i kind of like it, i always miss those upper key and alt for paragraphs, for me it is much faster to write out in plaintext.

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

#37693

On 01.11.19 21:19, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

> Den fredag 1 november 2019 kl. 18:44:26 UTC+1 skrev luserdroog:
[...]
>> For a more OO style, how about
>> 
>> class Interval { constructor( lower, upper ){ this.lower = lower; 
>> this.upper = upper; return this; } inside( x ){ return this.lower
>> <= x && x < this.upper; } outside( x ){ return ! this.inside( x ); 
>> } }
>> 
>> if( Interval(145, 159).inside(A) ) if( Interval(145,
>> 159).outside(A) )
> 
> You people really fuck up things beyond  semantical an interval can
> not be inside a number.... It may be outside but you really love to

Then just name it "contains":

if( Interval(145, 159).contains(A) ) ...

Or create a class which represents the number to be checked:

if (new NumberExtended(A).inside(145,159)) ...

Yes, this looks even more cumbersome - but this is how object oriented
stuff works.

> add complexity to problems that is simple. An interval is always a
> range there is no between in it so interval 1 to 3 always hold 1 and
> 2 and 3.

Or only values which are more than 1 and less then 3 - 1.1, 1.0001,
2.95, 2.999991 etc..

> But why do feel the urge to change things so they do not make sense
> the interval can never be inside A.....
> 
> It is utterly stupid...

No, it's the way how objects work. First the object, then the method.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#37699

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:14:28 AM UTC-6, Arno Welzel wrote:
> On 01.11.19 21:19, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> 
> > Den fredag 1 november 2019 kl. 18:44:26 UTC+1 skrev luserdroog:
> [...]
> >> For a more OO style, how about
> >> 
> >> class Interval { constructor( lower, upper ){ this.lower = lower; 
> >> this.upper = upper; return this; } inside( x ){ return this.lower
> >> <= x && x < this.upper; } outside( x ){ return ! this.inside( x ); 
> >> } }
> >> 
> >> if( Interval(145, 159).inside(A) ) if( Interval(145,
> >> 159).outside(A) )
> > 
> > You people really fuck up things beyond  semantical an interval can
> > not be inside a number.... It may be outside but you really love to
> 
> Then just name it "contains":
> 
> if( Interval(145, 159).contains(A) ) ...
> 

That is a better name. Of course I was using the same word from the OP,
but it did indeed read oddly when the word order was inverted to fit
the method syntax. For the inverse operation, maybe "excludes"?

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

#37686

Il 01/11/2019 08:50, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> It so boring writing if intervals using < > or > <
> And hard to read
> Why not simplify
>
> if(A inside.interval(144-159))
> if (A outside.interval(144-159))
>
> Maybe there already is interval functions in javascript?


A function like that would be named between(), non inside.interval, 
which BTW is total nonsense: interval.inside would make sense, with an 
Interval object exposing the Inside method, but inside.interval shows 
you don't have even the least comprehension of what you're doing: you're 
talking about an Inside object (!!!) who exposes an Interval method. 
This goes way beyond programming, this is total incapacity to abstract 
real world things
Make sure to have your IQ checked again

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

#37687

Den måndag 4 november 2019 kl. 11:31:17 UTC+1 skrev Flng Fck:
> Il 01/11/2019 08:50, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> > It so boring writing if intervals using < > or > <
> > And hard to read
> > Why not simplify
> >
> > if(A inside.interval(144-159))
> > if (A outside.interval(144-159))
> >
> > Maybe there already is interval functions in javascript?
> 
> 
> A function like that would be named between(), non inside.interval, 
> which BTW is total nonsense: interval.inside would make sense, with an 
> Interval object exposing the Inside method, but inside.interval shows 
> you don't have even the least comprehension of what you're doing: you're 
> talking about an Inside object (!!!) who exposes an Interval method. 
> This goes way beyond programming, this is total incapacity to abstract 
> real world things
> Make sure to have your IQ checked again

Just did 187 apparently moved up 10 notch since last time, programming languages syntax is just semanic in high level languages. But it is way beyond simple monkeys comprehension. I could make a programming language that perfectly parsed with ordinalry language unfortunately it is way beyond and blip-bloping monkey task.

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

#37702

Am 04.11.19 um 11:46 schrieb Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den måndag 4 november 2019 kl. 11:31:17 UTC+1 skrev Flng Fck:

>> Make sure to have your IQ checked again

> Just did 187 apparently moved up 10 notch since last time

Then why are you not exposing your superior IQ?

> But it is way beyond simple monkeys comprehension.I could make a programming language that perfectly parsed with ordinalry language unfortunately it is way beyond and blip-bloping monkey task.

Yeah. Sure...

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

#37688

Den måndag 4 november 2019 kl. 11:31:17 UTC+1 skrev Flng Fck:
> Il 01/11/2019 08:50, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> > It so boring writing if intervals using < > or > <
> > And hard to read
> > Why not simplify
> >
> > if(A inside.interval(144-159))
> > if (A outside.interval(144-159))
> >
> > Maybe there already is interval functions in javascript?
> 
> 
> A function like that would be named between(), non inside.interval, 
> which BTW is total nonsense: interval.inside would make sense, with an 
> Interval object exposing the Inside method, but inside.interval shows 
> you don't have even the least comprehension of what you're doing: you're 
> talking about an Inside object (!!!) who exposes an Interval method. 
> This goes way beyond programming, this is total incapacity to abstract 
> real world things
> Make sure to have your IQ checked again

Between lol you are such a fucking idiot that do not even understand boundaries that is why your moronic syntax ends up with things like >= bwahahahah your so fucking low IQ all of you blip bloppers.

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

#37690

On 11/4/19 11:48 AM, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> Den måndag 4 november 2019 kl. 11:31:17 UTC+1 skrev Flng Fck:
>> Il 01/11/2019 08:50, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
>>> It so boring writing if intervals using < > or > <
>>> And hard to read
>>> Why not simplify
>>>
>>> if(A inside.interval(144-159))
>>> if (A outside.interval(144-159))
>>>
>>> Maybe there already is interval functions in javascript?
>>
>>
>> A function like that would be named between(), non inside.interval,
>> which BTW is total nonsense: interval.inside would make sense, with an
>> Interval object exposing the Inside method, but inside.interval shows
>> you don't have even the least comprehension of what you're doing: you're
>> talking about an Inside object (!!!) who exposes an Interval method.
>> This goes way beyond programming, this is total incapacity to abstract
>> real world things
>> Make sure to have your IQ checked again
> 
> Between lol you are such a fucking idiot that do not even understand boundaries that is why your moronic syntax ends up with things like >= bwahahahah your so fucking low IQ all of you blip bloppers.
> 

You have Dunning-Kruger written all over you. Your futile programming 
attempts resemble a kid playing with his fathers power tools he does not 
understand. Nothing will come from it and chances are you will hurt 
yourself.

An actual smart person would have long seen through any syntactic 
idiosyncrasies of JavaScript and have grasped the underlying semantics 
(which you keep mixing up). And he would also have shown us some actual 
impressive results instead of asking the same stupid questions over and 
over while moaning about insignificant syntactical details.

Be honest: you still do not really understand what the notation (syntax, 
that is) a.b actually means (semantics, that is) do you?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web