Math ugliness.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 17 Feb 2010 15:21 Richard Cornford wrote: > On Feb 17, 4:14 pm, Jorge wrote: >> On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, Richard Cornford wrote: >>> You may recall that Google Chrome had been observed to be >>> getting this aspect of ES3 wrong (with regard to String >>> object methods in those cases) long before there was an >>> ES5 (or this change had been proposed), so for at least >>> one of the participants in the ECMA committee getting the >>> change passed meant not having to fix what had previously >>> been a faulty script engine. >> >> Leaving aside compatibility with ES3, is there any benefit >> in forcing "this" to be an object ? > > None. Yes, there is: Repeated accesses to properties of `this' would not need repeated conversion to object, whether inside the method context or outside (if `this' was returned and the return value re-used). 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.)
From: Peter Michaux on 17 Feb 2010 15:24 On Feb 16, 3:23 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Do you think -as I do- that the Math object is an ugly artifact ? No. Think of it as a namespace for Math functions. > (2).pow(10) > --> 1024 That is a perfect example of where message passing for (at least) Math fails. The exponentiation function takes two arguments: base and exponent. Neither is more important than the other. Neither is the object to which I wish to send a message. Neither argument has state that is or needs mutation. They are just arguments to a pure function that has no side effects. Message passing is an inappropriate paradigm for this sort of computation. This looks a whole lot better: pow(2, 10) Adding a namespace is not significantly different: Math.pow(2, 10) Peter
From: Jorge on 17 Feb 2010 16:06 On Feb 17, 9:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > > Yes, there is: Repeated accesses to properties of `this' would not need > repeated conversion to object, whether inside the method context or outside > (if `this' was returned and the return value re-used). But these are just the specs. Implementations can optimize. IOW: "you can cheat if you don't get caught" -- Jorge.
From: Jorge on 17 Feb 2010 16:08 On Feb 17, 9:24 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 3:23 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Do you think -as I do- that the Math object is an ugly artifact ? > > No. > > Think of it as a namespace for Math functions. > > > (2).pow(10) > > --> 1024 > > That is a perfect example of where message passing for (at least) Math > fails. The exponentiation function takes two arguments: base and > exponent. Neither is more important than the other. Neither is the > object to which I wish to send a message. Neither argument has state > that is or needs mutation. They are just arguments to a pure function > that has no side effects. Message passing is an inappropriate paradigm > for this sort of computation. > > This looks a whole lot better: > > pow(2, 10) > > Adding a namespace is not significantly different: > > Math.pow(2, 10) I thought it was licit for an object's method to operate on the object. -- Jorge.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 17 Feb 2010 16:10
Peter Michaux wrote: > Jorge wrote: >> Do you think -as I do- that the Math object is an ugly artifact ? > > No. ACK > Think of it as a namespace for Math functions. See below. >> (2).pow(10) >> --> 1024 > > That is a perfect example of where message passing for (at least) Math > fails. What are you talking about? Nothing fails here. > The exponentiation function takes two arguments: base and > exponent. Neither is more important than the other. Straw man. > Neither is the object to which I wish to send a message. Yes, the "object" is `2' (or `(2)'). > Neither argument has state that is or needs mutation. Non sequitur. Messages do not need to cause mutation. > They are just arguments to a pure function that has no side effects. So what? > Message passing is an inappropriate paradigm for this sort of > computation. Several designers of other languages, in particular Smalltalk, would disagree. > This looks a whole lot better: > > pow(2, 10) Because it is prefix instead of infix style? Efficiency considerations aside, that is is a matter of preference. And given that in math we are writing 10 2 to display the value of "two to the tenth power", is it not more similar and therefore more intuititive to write (2).pow(10) in source code? I know at least one programming language that agrees here: bash (`$((2**10))'). > Adding a namespace is not significantly different: > > Math.pow(2, 10) Non sequitur. No namespace is needed where the context is clear. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann |