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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #11723

Re: server-side vs.client-side

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Damon wrote:

> On 11/2/13, 12:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Michael Vilain wrote:
>>> I've never seen javascript run on anything but a browser.
>> 
>> Which does not mean anything.  Not only is that an /argumentum ad
>> ignorantiam/, a classic fallacy; but also, contrary to common
>> misconception, there is not even a (single) programming language called
>> “javascript”.
>
> Several Fallacies here:
> 
> First, this is not "argumentum ad ignorantiam" because that fallacy is
> the fallacy of assuming something is true because it has not been proven
> false.

It is an /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ *exactly* because of that.  The premise 
set here implicitly is that “javascript” could only run in a browser, and 
the argument made to prove that is that anything else has not been observed 
by the person setting the premise; therefore the premise is assumed to be 
true.  And *that* is a fallacy.

> You might be able to claim a fallicy of lack of evidence does not
> imply evidence of the lack, but the problem with citing that is the
> claim isn't that NO use of "javascipt" is not client-side, but that the
> "norm" for "javascript" is client-side, which means that any possible
> server-side use, if it exist, needs to be uncommon, which IS supported
> (but maybe not proved) by a lack of observation. Refutation of this
> observation could be done by showing a existing usage *of common enough
> usage* to negate the "normally" tag.

Your logic is flawed.

> There is a language called "javascript",

There is not.

> even your beloved ECMAScipt.org site admits this, stating in at least one
> location:
> 
> "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly known as
> "JavaScript" is standardized.

First, note the different spelling.  Second, that is still an explanation 
for laymen.  The only normative work, the ECMAScript Language Specification, 
5.1 Edition (and previous Editions), clearly say(s):

| This Ecma Standard is based on several originating technologies, the most
| well known being JavaScript (Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft).
 
> Which admits to the existence of language with the name of "javascript",

No, it does not.  It admits the existence of one programming language named 
“JavaScript” (of many others); an existence which was _not_ debated (on the 
contrary; if you read the ECMAScript Support Matrix carefully, you can find 
confirmation of its existence, past and present, numerous times).

> it just isn't the name of the language that the standard applies to.

Utter nonsense.
 
> Your instance that "There is no javascript" is a denial of reality.

No, your and other's use of ”javascript” is.  From the standard *follows* 
that there is no single programming language to implement it, and certainly 
no language with that name.  The ES Matrix also shows that there have not 
been and there is not one programming language, but several ones, with 
different names, and have been since shortly after the beginning.

I have been dealing with ECMAScript-based programming languages since about 
16 years now; they are the basis of my scientific work in computer science.  
Therefore, I strongly suggest you get yourself a lot more informed on the 
subject before you start discussing it with me.  It would also be preferable 
if you discussed it where it is on-topic (comp.lang.javascript), otherwise I 
will have to adjust my scorefile.
 
> The rest of your rant is similarly filled with the flaw that something
> must be wrong because it doesn't match YOUR particular unusual
> definition (or lack there of) even if it matches the commonly use meaning.

It is not merely *my* definition.  Perhaps what distinguishes the 
professional from the layman the most is that the professional knows that 
and understands why definitions cannot be arbitrarily made up if they are to 
make sense: they must fit into an existing framework of definitions, they 
must be ontological plausible.

To say that a programming language ”is server-side” or “is client-side” 
assigns to it an *exclusive* property by predicate.  It means that this 
programming language could *only* be used either client-side or *only* 
server-side.  

And nothing could be farther from the truth.  It is the very property of 
programming languages to be usable in whatever architecture (to be “general-
purpose” in that regard) that makes them so powerful.  One must keep in mind 
that a programming language is a human-readable abstraction of operations 
that tell a machine what to do in order to achieve a human-set goal.  It is 
only *later* that the human ascribes to a machine or program the property of 
being a “client” or a “server” *or* *both*, and he can do that *only* in the 
client-server architecture.


PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 10:58 -0400
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 16:45 +0100
    Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 12:01 -0400
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 17:53 +0000
    Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 14:24 -0400
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:38 +0000
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-27 14:43 -0400
        Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 03:22 +0100
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 05:49 -0400
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0400
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 14:37 +0100
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-28 13:49 +0000
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 10:01 -0400
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-28 11:36 -0700
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 21:29 -0400
              Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-29 12:18 +0100
                cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-31 23:21 -0400
                Re: cr Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 15:29 +0100
                Re: cr Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-03 09:34 -0500
                Re: cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-03 15:18 -0500
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:12 +0100
              Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-29 20:21 +0000
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:10 +0100
            server-side vs.client-side (was: checking for audio playing ???) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-29 21:45 +0100
              Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 20:54 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 03:18 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 22:31 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:20 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 19:04 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 14:58 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 20:54 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 16:21 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 21:55 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 17:07 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-31 09:40 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-31 23:03 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-31 20:38 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:57 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 19:36 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-02 18:44 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 00:28 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-11-02 19:01 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-02 21:40 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-01 09:53 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 13:53 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 21:10 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 22:25 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 22:29 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 20:37 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:26 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 18:37 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Stefan+Usenet@Froehlich.Priv.at (Stefan Froehlich) - 2013-11-01 19:19 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:24 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:46 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-02 15:41 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-02 21:37 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-03 10:48 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 10:28 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-05 11:15 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-05 12:47 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 14:16 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 16:00 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 14:52 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 23:19 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-04 18:02 +0000
              Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:09 +0100
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 15:23 +0000
        Re: checking for audio playing ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 16:56 +0000
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:22 +0000
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-28 20:02 +0100

csiph-web