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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #39782 > unrolled thread

Amazing

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

Contents

  Amazing Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-03-27 00:57 -0700
    Re: Amazing Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2021-03-27 01:25 -0700
      Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-27 09:59 +0000
        Re: Amazing "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2021-03-27 09:49 -0700
          Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-27 19:07 +0000
            Re: Amazing John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-03-28 11:03 +0100
              Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-28 11:55 +0100
                Re: Amazing John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-03-28 15:12 +0100
                  Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-28 20:02 +0100
          Re: Amazing John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-03-29 19:29 +0100
            Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-29 21:00 +0100
              Re: Amazing "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2021-03-29 13:44 -0700
                Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-29 22:01 +0100
                  Re: Amazing "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2021-03-29 14:25 -0700
                    Re: Amazing Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2021-03-31 00:42 +0200
                      Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-03-31 07:13 +0100
              Re: Amazing John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-03-31 19:43 +0100
                Re: Amazing The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-04-01 08:30 +0100
                  Re: Amazing John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2021-04-01 18:02 +0100

#39782 — Amazing

The amount of circular convoluted reasoning put into referencing iframes must been quite extraordinary.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#39783

lördag 27 mars 2021 kl. 08:57:11 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> The amount of circular convoluted reasoning put into referencing iframes must been quite extraordinary.
If you were not all inherently brain damaged by profession, you would have recognised, that it is enough to write a single reference within iframe and parent.

Something like 
parent.scope()
iframe.scope()

And maybe reference them with an URL

Instead of write out, and rewrite a couple of thousand references for every fucking single variable and field, everytime you want to move your iframe or it change URL.
I think you are nutjobs, something not spinning the right way up there,

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

#39784

On 27/03/2021 08:25, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> lördag 27 mars 2021 kl. 08:57:11 UTC+1 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
>> The amount of circular convoluted reasoning put into referencing iframes must been quite extraordinary.
> If you were not all inherently brain damaged by profession, you would have recognised, that it is enough to write a single reference within iframe and parent.
> 
> Something like
> parent.scope()
> iframe.scope()
> 
> And maybe reference them with an URL
> 
> Instead of write out, and rewrite a couple of thousand references for every fucking single variable and field, everytime you want to move your iframe or it change URL.
> I think you are nutjobs, something not spinning the right way up there,
> 
Well the same goes for audio.
By mashing the thing into object oriented format, the increase in 
obscure documentation alone is tenfold, and the obscurity of the 
'objects' and 'classes' so produced is made satisfactorily 
incomprehensible.

It simply raises the barrier to entry for coding and keeps coders in work.


-- 
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll 
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

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

#39788

On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Well the same goes for audio. 
> By mashing the thing into object oriented format, the increase in 
> obscure documentation alone is tenfold, and the obscurity of the 
> 'objects' and 'classes' so produced is made satisfactorily 
> incomprehensible. 
> 
> It simply raises the barrier to entry for coding and keeps coders in work. 

Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..

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

#39789

On 27/03/2021 16:49, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> Well the same goes for audio.
>> By mashing the thing into object oriented format, the increase in
>> obscure documentation alone is tenfold, and the obscurity of the
>> 'objects' and 'classes' so produced is made satisfactorily
>> incomprehensible.
>>
>> It simply raises the barrier to entry for coding and keeps coders in work.
> 
> Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..
> 

you can write unstructured bad code in any language

OO purpost to make it impossible. In fact a bad programmer will simply 
create bad objects and classes and fail to document them properly



-- 
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

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

#39790

On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:07:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/03/2021 16:49, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
  <snip>
>> Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..
>> 
>
>you can write unstructured bad code in any language
>
>OO purpost to make it impossible. 

Which PR company wrote that? You shouldn't believe every advert you
see.


>In fact a bad programmer will simply 
>create bad objects and classes and fail to document them properly

Bad designers, encouraged by bad textbooks, will always find a way to
do things clumsily, or worse.

Incidentally, which "JavaScript" specification specifies an audio API?

  John

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

#39791

On 28/03/2021 11:03, John G Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:07:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/03/2021 16:49, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>    <snip>
>>> Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..
>>>
>>
>> you can write unstructured bad code in any language
>>
>> OO purpost to make it impossible.
> 
> Which PR company wrote that? You shouldn't believe every advert you
> see.
> 
> 
>> In fact a bad programmer will simply
>> create bad objects and classes and fail to document them properly
> 
> Bad designers, encouraged by bad textbooks, will always find a way to
> do things clumsily, or worse.
> 
> Incidentally, which "JavaScript" specification specifies an audio API?
The web audio API one?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API
> 
>    John
> 


-- 
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

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

#39793

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 11:55:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 28/03/2021 11:03, John G Harris wrote:
  <snip>
>> Incidentally, which "JavaScript" specification specifies an audio API?
>The web audio API one?
>
>https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API

The only picture drawn on that page tells you all you need to know
about that product. It enables you to build and use an audio
processing desk with inputs, a chain of Digital Signal Processors, and
outputs.

What you are looking for is a single, pre-defined, DSP, so you are
looking at the wrong product.

Why don't you just copy and paste the Mozilla functions that do the
work?

  John

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

#39794

On 28/03/2021 15:12, John G Harris wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 11:55:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 28/03/2021 11:03, John G Harris wrote:
>    <snip>
>>> Incidentally, which "JavaScript" specification specifies an audio API?
>> The web audio API one?
>>
>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API
> 
> The only picture drawn on that page tells you all you need to know
> about that product. It enables you to build and use an audio
> processing desk with inputs, a chain of Digital Signal Processors, and
> outputs.
> 
> What you are looking for is a single, pre-defined, DSP, so you are
> looking at the wrong product.
> 
> Why don't you just copy and paste the Mozilla functions that do the
> work?
> 
Because they don't?

>    John
> 


-- 
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

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

#39798

On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT), "Michael Haufe (TNO)"
<tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
  <snip rant>

>Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..

He's someone who walks into a car showroom and complains loudly that
they don't sell yachts. 

"They've all got wheels. What use is that? And some of them don't even
float for goodness sake!"

  John

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

#39799

On 29/03/2021 19:29, John G Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT), "Michael Haufe (TNO)"
> <tno@thenewobjective.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:59:22 AM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>    <snip rant>
> 
>> Do you have an actual argument against OOP directly or is it just ranting against bad code you've seen around the internet? Replacing OOP with some vague notion of unstructured, imperative+procedural programming is not an improvement..
> 
> He's someone who walks into a car showroom and complains loudly that
> they don't sell yachts.
> 
> "They've all got wheels. What use is that? And some of them don't even
> float for goodness sake!"
> 
>    John
> 
The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder to 
understand, and produces worse, not better, code.


-- 
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that 
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

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

#39800

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 3:00:59 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder to 
> understand, and produces worse, not better, code. 

I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate succinctly?

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

#39801

On 29/03/2021 21:44, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 3:00:59 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder to
>> understand, and produces worse, not better, code.
> 
> I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate succinctly?
> 
Of course not. Succinct does not exist in OOP.




-- 
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

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

#39802

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:02:05 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/03/2021 21:44, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: 
> > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 3:00:59 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher wrote: 
> > 
> >> The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder to 
> >> understand, and produces worse, not better, code. 
> > 
> > I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate succinctly? 
> >
> Of course not. Succinct does not exist in OOP. 

1. One can claim something is true
2. One can "know" that a claim is true because of awareness of some proof
3. One can "know that they know"  it is true by demonstration of a proof

If #1 was the same as #3 then all claims would be self-evidently true and all disagreements would be impossible. We would be living in fantasy land.

You are thus far unwilling to demonstrate and unwilling to provide proof (or unable). Thus there is no reason to believe the claim.

With someone bearing the handle: "Natural Philosopher" I would have expected at least some regard for empiricism.

I'd believe you if you said you have a large collection of anecdotal information.

The plural of anecdote is hypothesis. In this case it's that "OOP is bad".

You need to take the next step and develop or demonstrate a theory to why it is bad.

I could demonstrate Hutton's Razor to compare and contrast OOP and FP. It would be enlightening but, I wonder what your opinion of FP is?

If you claim FP is better or worse than OOP then I know you haven't done your homework on this.

If you claim FP and OOP are both terrible paradigms, then I might agree with you: What replaces them? Can you demonstrate or name this paradigm? 

I can name one successor, and give references and demonstrations.

If you can do nothing of the sort, then I'd ask you not to continue with the claim: it's just noise and useless to anyone beyond yourself.

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

#39808

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 4:02:05 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>> On 29/03/2021 21:44, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> > On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 3:00:59 PM UTC-5, The Natural Philosopher
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> >> The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder
>> >> to understand, and produces worse, not better, code.
>> > 
>> > I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate succinctly?
>> 
>> Of course not. Succinct does not exist in OOP.

me.facepalm();
 
> 1. One can claim something is true
> 2. One can "know" that a claim is true because of awareness of some proof
> 3. One can "know that they know"  it is true by demonstration of a proof

This thread reminds me of probably my favorite statement by Neil deGrasse 
Tyson:

  “One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a
   subject to think you’re right, but not enough about the subject to know
   you’re wrong.”

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#39811

On 30/03/2021 23:42, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>    “One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a
>     subject to think you’re right, but not enough about the subject to know
>     you’re wrong.”
Yes Thomas, indeed. Thomas.

-- 
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing 
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

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

#39813

On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:00:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

  <snip>
>The argument against OOP is that it creates more work, is far harder to 
>understand, and produces worse, not better, code.

Let's pretend you want to make a program that can place components of
various kinds on to a diagram. The components might be furniture in a
room, they might be power stations in an electrical network, etc, etc.

One way to do it goes like this : Each component is represented by a
lump of data, with different layouts for different kinds of component.
In each lump there is a pointer (in C, or the equivalent in other
languages) to an array of pointers to function. There is a different
array of pointers for each kind of component (not each lump).

Suppose the 3rd function pointed to knows how to draw the component if
given its lump of data. To draw a component, go to its data lump, use
the pointer to access the 3rd entry in the array and call the function
pointed to with a pointer to the data lump. That component gets drawn.

Another function knows how to create the necessary data lump when a
new component is added to the diagram. And another knows how to tidy
up and free a data lump when a component is removed.

These pointers are in the same 3 positions in the array regardless of
what kind of component it is. The caller doesn't need to know anything
about which kind of component it is. Other positions can be for
functions special to a particular kind of component : change colour,
change MegaWatts, etc. The caller then needs to know the kind in these
cases; probably the caller is one of the other functions pointed to by
the array.

All this is easy to do, runs fast, and it's straightforward to add a
new kind of component years later. Congratulations! You've implemented
classes in C, and reinvented C++ v-tables.

Or would a philosopher object mightily and tell Marketing that they
must not ask for non-procedural products?

  John

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

#39816

On 31/03/2021 19:43, John G Harris wrote:
> All this is easy to do, runs fast, and it's straightforward to add a
> new kind of component years later. Congratulations! You've implemented
> classes in C, and reinvented C++ v-tables.

You can implement classes and objects in C. It's just a way of programming.

It isn't *forced on you* by the language, and frankly, fashion.


> 
> Or would a philosopher object mightily and tell Marketing that they
> must not ask for non-procedural products?

If you want a non procedural CPU neither you nor marketing are going to 
be happy.


-- 
  “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, 
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, 
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

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

#39831

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:30:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 31/03/2021 19:43, John G Harris wrote:
>> All this is easy to do, runs fast, and it's straightforward to add a
>> new kind of component years later. Congratulations! You've implemented
>> classes in C, and reinvented C++ v-tables.
>
>You can implement classes and objects in C. It's just a way of programming.

But wouldn't it be nice to have a program do all the fiddly bits :
making function pointers, assigning positions, etc. Oh! There is. It's
called the C++ compiler. And you don't even have to used objects if
you don't want to.


>It isn't *forced on you* by the language, and frankly, fashion.

If you insist on using a kludge language you're going to be annoyed,
and if you insist on using one that is interpreted it's going to be
slow. So what?


>> Or would a philosopher object mightily and tell Marketing that they
>> must not ask for non-procedural products?
>
>If you want a non procedural CPU neither you nor marketing are going to 
>be happy.

I'm talking about software products.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web