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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #40683 > unrolled thread

Monkey gibberish

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

Contents

  Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-20 13:19 -0800
    Re: Monkey gibberish luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2021-12-20 15:00 -0800
      Re: Monkey gibberish Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2021-12-20 23:34 +0000
        Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 12:26 -0800
          Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 12:32 -0800
            Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 12:53 -0800
              Re: Monkey gibberish The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-23 12:15 +0000
    Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-21 13:41 +0100
      Re: Monkey gibberish The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-21 15:40 +0000
        Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-22 10:30 +0100
          Re: Monkey gibberish The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-22 12:05 +0000
      Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 10:00 -0800
        Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 10:21 -0800
          Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 10:26 -0800
            Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 12:24 -0800
              Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 15:06 -0800
              Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 15:08 -0800
                Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-21 15:08 -0800
                  Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-22 10:33 +0100
        Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-22 10:31 +0100
          Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 03:34 -0800
            Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 03:41 -0800
              Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-22 17:12 +0100
              Re: Monkey gibberish John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-12-22 18:26 +0000
                Re: Monkey gibberish Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-12-22 12:05 -0800
                  Re: Monkey gibberish Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2021-12-23 02:37 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#40683 — Monkey gibberish

I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?

.then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
.then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));

Specifically
.then  =>
Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#40684

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> 
> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> 
> Specifically 
> .then => 
> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?

I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right, the above
can be translated into:

  var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result
  var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x);

Or even:

  ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here

It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result of one
is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same thing with a series
of temporary variables or by composing all the expressions into one massive expression.

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

#40685

On 2021-12-20, luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain
>> this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
>> 
>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
>> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
>> 
>> Specifically 
>> .then => 
>> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
>
> I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right,
> the above can be translated into:
>
>   var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result
>   var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x);
>
> Or even:
>
>   ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here
>
> It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result
> of one is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same
> thing with a series of temporary variables or by composing all the
> expressions into one massive expression.

The important bit you didn't mention is that it's dealing with Promises.
So you can't do either of the things you suggest above. If you're in an
async function you could do this however:

  const audioData = await ctx.decodeAudioData(await res.arrayBuffer())

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

#40710

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 00:34:44 UTC+1 skrev Jon Ribbens:
> On 2021-12-20, luserdroog <luser...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain 
> >> this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> >> 
> >> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> >> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> >> 
> >> Specifically 
> >> .then => 
> >> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > 
> > I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right, 
> > the above can be translated into: 
> > 
> > var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result 
> > var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x); 
> > 
> > Or even: 
> > 
> > ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here 
> > 
> > It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result 
> > of one is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same 
> > thing with a series of temporary variables or by composing all the 
> > expressions into one massive expression.
> The important bit you didn't mention is that it's dealing with Promises. 
> So you can't do either of the things you suggest above. If you're in an 
> async function you could do this however: 
> 
> const audioData = await ctx.decodeAudioData(await res.arrayBuffer())

Why can't i do this.
const audiostream = new AudioContext();

async function audioPlay(url){
	const audioBuffer = await fetch(url)
	.then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
	.then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
	const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource();
	var gainNode = audiostream.createGain();
	gainNode.gain.value = -0.1;
	playwav.buffer = audioBuffer;
	playwav.connect(audiostream.destination);
	playwav.start();
};

or this to set volume

const audiostream = new AudioContext();
var gainNode = audiostream.createGain();
gainNode.gain.value = -0.1;

async function audioPlay(url){
	const audioBuffer = await fetch(url)
	.then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
	.then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
	const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource();
	playwav.buffer = audioBuffer;
	playwav.connect(audiostream.destination);
	playwav.start();
};

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

#40711

onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 21:26:47 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 00:34:44 UTC+1 skrev Jon Ribbens: 
> > On 2021-12-20, luserdroog <luser...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain 
> > >> this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > >> 
> > >> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > >> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > >> 
> > >> Specifically 
> > >> .then => 
> > >> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > 
> > > I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right, 
> > > the above can be translated into: 
> > > 
> > > var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result 
> > > var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x); 
> > > 
> > > Or even: 
> > > 
> > > ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here 
> > > 
> > > It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result 
> > > of one is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same 
> > > thing with a series of temporary variables or by composing all the 
> > > expressions into one massive expression. 
> > The important bit you didn't mention is that it's dealing with Promises. 
> > So you can't do either of the things you suggest above. If you're in an 
> > async function you could do this however: 
> > 
> > const audioData = await ctx.decodeAudioData(await res.arrayBuffer())
> Why can't i do this. 
> const audiostream = new AudioContext(); 
> 
> async function audioPlay(url){ 
> const audioBuffer = await fetch(url) 
> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource(); 
> var gainNode = audiostream.createGain(); 
> gainNode.gain.value = -0.1; 
> playwav.buffer = audioBuffer; 
> playwav.connect(audiostream.destination); 
> playwav.start(); 
> }; 
> 
> or this to set volume 
> 
> const audiostream = new AudioContext(); 
> var gainNode = audiostream.createGain(); 
> gainNode.gain.value = -0.1; 
> 
> async function audioPlay(url){ 
> const audioBuffer = await fetch(url) 
> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource(); 
> playwav.buffer = audioBuffer; 
> playwav.connect(audiostream.destination); 
> playwav.start(); 
> };
I mean using .start() with an volume parameter, is what any none anal person would do.

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

#40712

onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 21:33:03 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 21:26:47 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 00:34:44 UTC+1 skrev Jon Ribbens: 
> > > On 2021-12-20, luserdroog <luser...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > >> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain 
> > > >> this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > >> 
> > > >> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > >> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Specifically 
> > > >> .then => 
> > > >> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > > 
> > > > I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right, 
> > > > the above can be translated into: 
> > > > 
> > > > var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result 
> > > > var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x); 
> > > > 
> > > > Or even: 
> > > > 
> > > > ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here 
> > > > 
> > > > It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result 
> > > > of one is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same 
> > > > thing with a series of temporary variables or by composing all the 
> > > > expressions into one massive expression. 
> > > The important bit you didn't mention is that it's dealing with Promises. 
> > > So you can't do either of the things you suggest above. If you're in an 
> > > async function you could do this however: 
> > > 
> > > const audioData = await ctx.decodeAudioData(await res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > Why can't i do this. 
> > const audiostream = new AudioContext(); 
> > 
> > async function audioPlay(url){ 
> > const audioBuffer = await fetch(url) 
> > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource(); 
> > var gainNode = audiostream.createGain(); 
> > gainNode.gain.value = -0.1; 
> > playwav.buffer = audioBuffer; 
> > playwav.connect(audiostream.destination); 
> > playwav.start(); 
> > }; 
> > 
> > or this to set volume 
> > 
> > const audiostream = new AudioContext(); 
> > var gainNode = audiostream.createGain(); 
> > gainNode.gain.value = -0.1; 
> > 
> > async function audioPlay(url){ 
> > const audioBuffer = await fetch(url) 
> > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource(); 
> > playwav.buffer = audioBuffer; 
> > playwav.connect(audiostream.destination); 
> > playwav.start(); 
> > };
> I mean using .start() with an volume parameter, is what any none anal person would do.
How many models do a programming language need, if you can write the code  in a dousins of ways, it will be hard to read without a manual.
Why did they not just do something like
playwav.setVolume(-0.5);

Why invent a hierarchy of idioties to write to set the volume?

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

#40714

On 22/12/2021 20:53, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 21:33:03 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
>> onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 21:26:47 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
>>> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 00:34:44 UTC+1 skrev Jon Ribbens:
>>>> On 2021-12-20, luserdroog <luser...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:19:41 PM UTC-6, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain
>>>>>> this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>>>>>> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically
>>>>>> .then =>
>>>>>> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is the new fad called "monadic sequencing". If I'm right,
>>>>> the above can be translated into:
>>>>>
>>>>> var x = res.arrayBuffer(); //only it won't be called "res", but the name of the previous result
>>>>> var y = ctx.decodeAudioData(x);
>>>>>
>>>>> Or even:
>>>>>
>>>>> ctx.decodeAudioData( res.arrayBuffer() ); //again, "res" isn't the correct name here
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just a sequence of functions "arg=> expression" where the result
>>>>> of one is passed as the argument to the next. You can do the same
>>>>> thing with a series of temporary variables or by composing all the
>>>>> expressions into one massive expression.
>>>> The important bit you didn't mention is that it's dealing with Promises.
>>>> So you can't do either of the things you suggest above. If you're in an
>>>> async function you could do this however:
>>>>
>>>> const audioData = await ctx.decodeAudioData(await res.arrayBuffer())
>>> Why can't i do this.
>>> const audiostream = new AudioContext();
>>>
>>> async function audioPlay(url){
>>> const audioBuffer = await fetch(url)
>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>>> .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>> const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource();
>>> var gainNode = audiostream.createGain();
>>> gainNode.gain.value = -0.1;
>>> playwav.buffer = audioBuffer;
>>> playwav.connect(audiostream.destination);
>>> playwav.start();
>>> };
>>>
>>> or this to set volume
>>>
>>> const audiostream = new AudioContext();
>>> var gainNode = audiostream.createGain();
>>> gainNode.gain.value = -0.1;
>>>
>>> async function audioPlay(url){
>>> const audioBuffer = await fetch(url)
>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>>> .then(ArrayBuffer => audiostream.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>> const playwav = audiostream.createBufferSource();
>>> playwav.buffer = audioBuffer;
>>> playwav.connect(audiostream.destination);
>>> playwav.start();
>>> };
>> I mean using .start() with an volume parameter, is what any none anal person would do.
> How many models do a programming language need, if you can write the code  in a dousins of ways, it will be hard to read without a manual.
> Why did they not just do something like
> playwav.setVolume(-0.5);
> 
> Why invent a hierarchy of idioties to write to set the volume?
> 
Because Object Orientation Is Kewl and plebs like you dont understand it 
so they get your job.


-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

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

#40687

Jonas Thörnvall:

> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
> 
> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
> 
> Specifically
> .then  =>
> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?

Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean
that this is "gibberish".

See:

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise>


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#40688

On 21/12/2021 12:41, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> 
>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
>>
>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>
>> Specifically
>> .then  =>
>> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
> 
> Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean
> that this is "gibberish".
> 
> See:
> 
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise>
> 
> 
And remember that te primary purpose of extending computer languages is to
- make yourself look smart
- sell text books
- sell training courses
- make people who don't buy the above effectively redundant, as they can 
no longer understand your code.


The fact that async syntax in JavaShite is total utter crap, is, in this 
context, an advantage. I mean what tosser invented 'promise' ?

I guess it was some millennial snoflake who once saw the term, 
'master-slave' in a textbook ' and 'male plug female socket' in a parts 
catalogue and was so embarrassed and shamed that he/she/it had to scrape 
the linguistic barrel for a non offensive LBGT, a-racial non culturally 
offensive way of describing a future token. I mean christmasCard? 
Religion arrgh!

Wait for the response ILiedAboutThePromise...


-- 
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established 
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

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

#40699

The Natural Philosopher:

> On 21/12/2021 12:41, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jonas Thörnvall:
>>
>>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
>>>
>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>>> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>>
>>> Specifically
>>> .then  =>
>>> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
>>
>> Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean
>> that this is "gibberish".
>>
>> See:
>>
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise>
>>
>>
> And remember that te primary purpose of extending computer languages is to
> - make yourself look smart
> - sell text books
> - sell training courses
> - make people who don't buy the above effectively redundant, as they can 
> no longer understand your code.

If you don't like this - don't use JavaScript. It may not be the right
thing for you.

> The fact that async syntax in JavaShite is total utter crap, is, in this 
> context, an advantage. I mean what tosser invented 'promise' ?

Friedman, Daniel and David Wise coined the term "promise" about 1976.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises>

"Scheme" which was invented 1975 also implements the concept of promises
eventhough it was not named like that back then:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language)>

JavaScript re-discovered this in the late 2000s when asyncronous
execution of code became the de-facto standard for web based
applications. Promises as they are known today are usable in most
browsers since about 2014, so they are not really new there either.

> I guess it was some millennial snoflake who once saw the term, 
> 'master-slave' in a textbook ' and 'male plug female socket' in a parts 
[...]

I wouldn't call people who where already adults in 1970ies "milennial
snowflakes".


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#40705

On 22/12/2021 09:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher:
> 
>> On 21/12/2021 12:41, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Jonas Thörnvall:
>>>
>>>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
>>>>
>>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer())
>>>> .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>>>
>>>> Specifically
>>>> .then  =>
>>>> Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
>>>
>>> Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean
>>> that this is "gibberish".
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise>
>>>
>>>
>> And remember that te primary purpose of extending computer languages is to
>> - make yourself look smart
>> - sell text books
>> - sell training courses
>> - make people who don't buy the above effectively redundant, as they can
>> no longer understand your code.
> 
> If you don't like this - don't use JavaScript. It may not be the right
> thing for you.
> 

I have to use it for what want to do, but that doesn't stop me thinking 
its utter crap designed by computer scientists to be as obfuscatory as 
possible...


>> The fact that async syntax in JavaShite is total utter crap, is, in this
>> context, an advantage. I mean what tosser invented 'promise' ?
> 
> Friedman, Daniel and David Wise coined the term "promise" about 1976.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises>

Fucking American academic compscis the lot of them. I might have 
guessed, Today's academics breed tomorrows snoflakes

God, they even have lefty beards!

> 
> "Scheme" which was invented 1975 also implements the concept of promises
> eventhough it was not named like that back then:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_(programming_language)>
> 
> JavaScript re-discovered this in the late 2000s when asyncronous
> execution of code became the de-facto standard for web based
> applications. Promises as they are known today are usable in most
> browsers since about 2014, so they are not really new there either.
I am still not sure it is a decent way to either implement 
asynchronicity, or represent it in a language.

> 
>> I guess it was some millennial snoflake who once saw the term,
>> 'master-slave' in a textbook ' and 'male plug female socket' in a parts
> [...]
> 
> I wouldn't call people who where already adults in 1970ies "milennial
> snowflakes".
> 
Ok "20th century compSci snoflakes"

> 


-- 
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle 
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump 
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the 
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is 
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

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

#40690

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > 
> > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > 
> > Specifically 
> > .then => 
> > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish?
> Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> that this is "gibberish". 
> 
> See: 
> 
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel 
> https://arnowelzel.de
Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic.

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

#40691

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > 
> > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > 
> > > Specifically 
> > > .then => 
> > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > that this is "gibberish". 
> > 
> > See: 
> > 
> > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Arno Welzel 
> > https://arnowelzel.de
> Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic.
This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams.
The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual.
Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED*

I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations.

Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions".
Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language.

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

#40692

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:21:07 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > > 
> > > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > > 
> > > > Specifically 
> > > > .then => 
> > > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > > that this is "gibberish". 
> > > 
> > > See: 
> > > 
> > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Arno Welzel 
> > > https://arnowelzel.de 
> > Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic.
> This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams. 
> The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual. 
> Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED* 
> 
> I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations. 
> 
> Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions". 
> Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language.
Yeah i really start to think it is a reason for selling courses, and make you have to hire a certified "webmechanic" to make a homepage that say hello world.

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

#40693

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:26:57 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:21:07 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > > > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Specifically 
> > > > > .then => 
> > > > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > > > that this is "gibberish". 
> > > > 
> > > > See: 
> > > > 
> > > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Arno Welzel 
> > > > https://arnowelzel.de 
> > > Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic. 
> > This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams. 
> > The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual. 
> > Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED* 
> > 
> > I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations. 
> > 
> > Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions". 
> > Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language.
> Yeah i really start to think it is a reason for selling courses, and make you have to hire a certified "webmechanic" to make a homepage that say hello world.
Program languages are help to formulate ideas to specify the nuts and bolts "of the idea", anything that do not help out with the problem formulation and get the answer is just of no use.
Specify the nuts and bolt of some meta vocabulary can not be the main idea behind a language construct.

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

#40694

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 21:24:40 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:26:57 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:21:07 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > > > > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > > > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Specifically 
> > > > > > .then => 
> > > > > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > > > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > > > > that this is "gibberish". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > See: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Arno Welzel 
> > > > > https://arnowelzel.de 
> > > > Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic. 
> > > This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams. 
> > > The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual. 
> > > Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED* 
> > > 
> > > I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations. 
> > > 
> > > Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions". 
> > > Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language. 
> > Yeah i really start to think it is a reason for selling courses, and make you have to hire a certified "webmechanic" to make a homepage that say hello world.
> Program languages are help to formulate ideas to specify the nuts and bolts "of the idea", anything that do not help out with the problem formulation and get the answer is just of no use. 
> Specify the nuts and bolt of some meta vocabulary can not be the main idea behind a language construct.

Changing the volume of a sound
One of the most basic operations you might want to do to a sound is change its volume. Using the Web Audio API, we can route our source to its destination through an GainNode in order to manipulate the volume:


Audio graph with a gain node
This connection setup can be achieved as follows:

// Create a gain node.
var gainNode = context.createGain();
// Connect the source to the gain node.
source.connect(gainNode);
// Connect the gain node to the destination.
gainNode.connect(context.destination);

***Fuck such morons***

After the graph has been set up, you can programmatically change the volume by manipulating the gainNode.gain.value as follows:
// Reduce the volume.
gainNode.gain.value = 0.5;
The following is a demo of a volume control implemented with an <input type="range"> element:
gainNode.gain.value = 0.5; 

*** It is retarded createGain.....Connect wave to gain node LoL***
***bwahahaha the little retarded anal monkeys just can't help themself can they.***

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

#40695

tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 21:24:40 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:26:57 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:21:07 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > > > > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > > > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Specifically 
> > > > > > .then => 
> > > > > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > > > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > > > > that this is "gibberish". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > See: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Arno Welzel 
> > > > > https://arnowelzel.de 
> > > > Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic. 
> > > This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams. 
> > > The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual. 
> > > Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED* 
> > > 
> > > I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations. 
> > > 
> > > Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions". 
> > > Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language. 
> > Yeah i really start to think it is a reason for selling courses, and make you have to hire a certified "webmechanic" to make a homepage that say hello world.
> Program languages are help to formulate ideas to specify the nuts and bolts "of the idea", anything that do not help out with the problem formulation and get the answer is just of no use. 
> Specify the nuts and bolt of some meta vocabulary can not be the main idea behind a language construct.

Fuck i even do not want to write that code, it make me look anal retarded to.

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

#40696

onsdag 22 december 2021 kl. 00:08:17 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 21:24:40 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:26:57 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:21:07 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 19:00:58 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > > tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel: 
> > > > > > Jonas Thörnvall: 
> > > > > > > I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) 
> > > > > > > .then(ArrayBuffer => ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer)); 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Specifically 
> > > > > > > .then => 
> > > > > > > Is there another way to write it that may not be gibberish? 
> > > > > > Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not mean 
> > > > > > that this is "gibberish". 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > See: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise> 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Arno Welzel 
> > > > > > https://arnowelzel.de 
> > > > > Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and should not have part of the syntax, its moronic. 
> > > > This anal specification of things that the user do not care about drives me nuts, what the user want it functions. get buffersize, set buffsize, get stream, set streams. 
> > > > The language start to look like shit and is completly unreadable, without spending a year reading the manual. 
> > > > Make things *OBVIOUS* not *CONVOLUTED* 
> > > > 
> > > > I start to think about it is a reason for selling courses learning shit paradigms that noone really cares about "beyond their implementation reasons", and i repeat the user "programmer" do not fucking care about that shit unless he is an anal retarded monkey who thrives learning throw together shit that are just string concatinations. 
> > > > 
> > > > Fucking soon some bastard have translated the whole language to regexp expressions, that should be used. And you need to learn E-macs to edit the "expressions". 
> > > > Then the anal monkeys finally satified with laying a groundwork that make pearl look like natural language. 
> > > Yeah i really start to think it is a reason for selling courses, and make you have to hire a certified "webmechanic" to make a homepage that say hello world. 
> > Program languages are help to formulate ideas to specify the nuts and bolts "of the idea", anything that do not help out with the problem formulation and get the answer is just of no use. 
> > Specify the nuts and bolt of some meta vocabulary can not be the main idea behind a language construct.
> Fuck i even do not want to write that code, it make me look anal retarded to.
But i guess i must...

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

#40701

Jonas Thörnvall:

[...]
>> Fuck i even do not want to write that code, it make me look anal
>> retarded to.
> But i guess i must...

Why? Do you get paid for what you do?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#40700

Jonas Thörnvall:

> tisdag 21 december 2021 kl. 13:41:21 UTC+1 skrev Arno Welzel:
>> Jonas Thörnvall:
>>> I have a bit hard to read monkey gibberish, is there a way to
>>> explain this to someone who is not fullfledged retarded?
>>> 
>>> .then(res => res.arrayBuffer()) .then(ArrayBuffer =>
>>> ctx.decodeAudioData(ArrayBuffer));
>>> 
>>> Specifically .then => Is there another way to write it that may
>>> not be gibberish?
>> Just because you don't know every detail about JavaScript does not
>> mean that this is "gibberish".
>> 
>> See:
>> 
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise>
>> 
[...]
> Yeah precisely those things have no importance for the user and
> should not have part of the syntax, its moronic.

They are not for "users" but for softwar developers.



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web