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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22864

Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?

Message-ID <3111771.G1ZtisqbPV@PointedEars.de> (permalink)
From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Organization PointedEars Software (PES)
Date 2014-01-28 23:23 +0100
Subject Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?
Newsgroups comp.lang.javascript
References (7 earlier) <ab53ee9e-5ef5-4943-bfc5-ebc05407dc19@googlegroups.com> <4006284.34SQex3vo1@PointedEars.de> <52e7fbdd$0$9504$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <2689391.ZCeiWr7303@PointedEars.de> <52e820d8$0$9517$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>> I believe at least one of the arguments Michael has made, is that the
>>> DOM defines interfaces, but not actual objects ("classes"), which can be
>>> extended.  While a particular DOM implementation might expose an Element
>>> object, for instance, this is not mandatory.  For that reason alone it
>>> is not possible to reliably extend DOM objects (let alone the problem
>>> that they are host objects, and ECMAScript leaves broad room for the
>>> actual behavior of these), what may be regarded as (impedance) mismatch.
>> 
>> That would be a specious argument, then.  The very purpose, and the
>> benefit, of an interface in OOP is that an object implementing it
>> provides a well- defined minimum set of properties and methods, whereas
>> how the methods are implemented is left to the object, allowing for, but
>> not requiring, polymorphism.  It is decidedly _not_ the purpose of an
>> interface to be available itself as an object that can be extended; an
>> interface is _not_ the same as a class.
> 
> Of course.  However, the DOM could have specified that for every
> interface there has to be an according class (or a respective construct
> according to the implementing language, such as a constructor function
> for ECMAScript implementations) with the same name which implements the
> interface.

That would have changed it from being a language-neutral API into being a 
language-dependent one, at least.  For example, DOM Level 3 Core specifies 
only a language binding for Java and ECMAScript, but keep in mind that the 
attributes, methods, and language bindings in the DOM Specifications are 
*inclusive*:

,-<http://www.w3.org/DOM/#what>
| 
| The Document Object Model is a platform- and language-neutral interface
| that will allow programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the
| content, structure and style of documents. […]

,-<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/>
| 
| This specification defines the Document Object Model Core Level 3, a
| platform- and language-neutral interface that allows programs and scripts
| to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of
| documents.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

Thread

Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 02:37 -0800
  Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 11:52 +0100
    Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 12:04 -0800
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-26 22:24 +0100
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-26 14:49 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-27 02:14 +0100
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 18:30 -0800
              Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 19:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 19:50 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 21:18 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-28 22:27 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-28 23:23 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:12 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 22:30 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:35 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:59 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:08 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 22:52 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-02-02 10:09 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-04 23:42 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:40 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-29 17:17 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:51 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-01-31 01:06 +0100
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-28 19:36 -0800
                Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-01-31 14:47 +0100
      Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-27 14:36 +0000
        Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-27 16:05 -0800
          Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-29 15:26 +0000
            Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-29 16:44 -0800
              "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 11:10 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-01-30 10:38 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 13:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 12:45 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:05 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-01-31 21:32 +0000
                OT: "impedance mismatch" (was: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed?) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-02-01 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-02-01 02:40 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 10:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:54 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-30 14:02 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "ViLco" <villiber@tin.it> - 2014-01-30 16:24 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 00:35 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:16 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 15:14 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 00:56 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2014-01-30 22:13 -0800
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-01-31 11:51 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <J.R.Stockton@physics.org> - 2014-01-31 19:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-01 09:30 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-02 17:44 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 01:15 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 15:36 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 17:59 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-03 17:18 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-03 19:47 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-04 10:33 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-06 13:40 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-06 10:12 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-07 10:32 +0100
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-02-08 23:06 +0000
                Re: "impedance mismatch", was: Re: JavaScript unfairly blamed? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-02-09 10:33 +0100

csiph-web