JavaScript (tm) hoax
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-05-30)
Next: ANNC: qooxlisp 0.1: Driving Miss qooxdoo (from Common Lisp)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Jun 2010 05:30 John G Harris wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> John G Harris wrote: >>> I do realise that this next quote is going to upset you. It appears in >>> the Mozilla Development Centre, at >>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/About_JavaScript> >> I realize that you have still no clue what you are talking about. > > I predicted that the quote would annoy you. I was right. On the contrary, I find your ongoing naiveté quite refreshing. PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: John G Harris on 4 Jun 2010 11:05 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 at 13:30:05, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: <snip> >JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this Language >Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. That does not >mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is just nonsense. <snip> To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B. You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules of B; and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic specifications of B; and all the predefined functions, variables, and objects required when an A-program is executing are also required when a B-program is executing, etc. One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an implementation of ES2, implying that it's not really a language, or not a first class language. I could have understood you saying that 'part' is not the best word to use, but to say that it is nonsense betrays a woeful ignorance of English. HTH John -- John Harris
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 4 Jun 2010 16:38 John G Harris wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this >> Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. >> That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is >> just nonsense. > > To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming > language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that > there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B. If A is a programming language specification that describes implementations of itself. > You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules > of B; That is a fallacy since A is ECMAScript. > and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic > specifications of B; That is a fallacy, too, since A is ECMAScript. > One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an > implementation of ES2, No, that is a consequence of your fallacy. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: John G Harris on 5 Jun 2010 13:04 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 at 22:38:40, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >John G Harris wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this >>> Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. >>> That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is >>> just nonsense. >> >> To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming >> language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that >> there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B. > >If A is a programming language specification that describes implementations >of itself. If A is a specification that describes implementations of A ? That's what specifications do. However, I said A is the *language* specified, given A has a specification. >> You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules >> of B; > >That is a fallacy since A is ECMAScript. Technically it's not a fallacy as generalisation on constants is a valid transformation. (See a book on logic). Are you trying to say that it's false, so that while ( Expression ) Statement is not a syntax rule of JavaScript (from at least NN4) ? >> and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic >> specifications of B; > >That is a fallacy, too, since A is ECMAScript. Ditto >> One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an >> implementation of ES2, > >No, that is a consequence of your fallacy. Are you trying to say that ES3 is not an extension of ES2 ? John -- John Harris
From: John G Harris on 6 Jun 2010 04:57
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 at 01:21:30, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote: <snip> >The document is misleadingly titled >"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and >never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it. <snip> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ... John -- John Harris |