Terminology? Object structure definition, not a class?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: CreateTextFile
Next: Precise printing from Javascript?
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 20:45 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>> John G Harris wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead >>>>> of conflating them to ad hominems. >>>>> HTH >>>> No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself >>>> again. >>> You like talking about me, don't you? >> I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation, >> but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as >> a person. > > I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self- > righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group. ;) Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me. You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense. >> I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument, >> that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype". > > We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances > as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a > comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how > confusing that can be? Apparently, it is very confusing for you... In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object) it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v. Apparently, you have not known the answer to the question all this time and you're now only able to answer it incorrectly. >> If I consider you a peer, then I consider >> misunderstandings to be shared responsibilities. > > Neither are you my peer. Hard to imagine that I'm not your peer, in the sense that we probably both have knowledge about software development. I'm here to exchange knowledge, and to learn, and to discuss. I can't really see people on USENET as anything but peers and fellow programmers. Again, it is a causal grace that dominates the Internet, that we approach each other as equals. Asking a question of a newsgroup does not put a person in a position of being admonished. I am not inclined to accept admonishments from strangers. > But on this subject, that's clearly a false assumption. I'm telling > you that a new one of you blows in here every other week. It's always > the same story. If the turnover of this newsgroup is that bad, you should really look at what's gone off the tracks with the community. You'd hope that people would come and stay. If they are coming and probably, like me, standing their ground when they are condescended to, they are going to leave. It is a shame if that is the case. Truly, if it is the same story that someone engages with you until you insult them, then don't you feel that this pattern begs some self-observation? >> Asking a question of someone on through the >> Internet is not an admission of educational inferiority. > > Who said it was? But I put it to you that you are relatively ignorant > about JS and browser scripting. You'd do well to listen and learn for > a while and stop trying to lecture me on Usenet protocol. I don't believe that listening to you would teach me very much, I'm afraid. There is way to much noise in the signal. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not really responding to well to your rather Socratic method of conveying information. I much prefer direct answers to sincere questions. The sort given by the other poster. I'm able to pocket that information and move on. >>>> You were hammering home some point about what is or is not >>>> confusing to other people, not speaking directly to inquiries. >>> Oddly enough, that was the point of the discussion until you tried to >>> turn it into a private tutoring session. >> See above. I didn't receive any answers from you for my questions. Only >> from another poster, who answered the one question I had. > > You are seeing what you want to see. My question is why you want to > see such things (perhaps you've formed some sort of knee-jerk opinion > of me?) In other words, I answered your question at least a half- > dozen times before the same answer (with a slightly different > explanation) was posted. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to > teach you anything. Again, this is a discussion group and not a help > desk. You're not teaching me anything. You're not able to answer simple questions. Your whole line of reasoning has been that you've already answer the question and that I'm supposed to comb over your writings and extract it, but that is not how I want to spend my time. I don't imagine that you're obliged to me in any way at all. >> To use the newsgroup as a help desk would >> mean that I was asking a (likely) time sensitive question to an >> implementation. > > Dammit. You definitely seemed pressed for time on the question. Your > replies were relentless that it be spelled out for you immediately, to > the point where you started to complain about the bad service. Never did I complain about bad service. I am not working on or in JavaScript today. This is all a doodle. >> I'm simply another USENET participant engaging in a >> threaded conversation about the topic at hand. > > No, as I see it, you didn't seem interested in the topic at hand. You > veered off onto some quasi-related topic that, in turn, did not > interest me. I've only been trying to pin down the meaning of "instance" and "instanceof". At this point I'm only responding to your mis-characterizations. >>>> You still have not >>>> address the point I made in the other branch of the thread, that >>>> "instance" is a valid description of an "instance" of a "prototype" in >>>> JavaScript. >>> I'm through repeating myself for your admitted lack of benefit. Best >>> of luck! >> You never repeated yourself and you never answered the question. > > If that's your take, you didn't read my numerous posts to this thread > (several of which were replies to your posts). Your homework is to re- > read the entire thread from start to finish and to post an essay on > where you went wrong. That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 21:02 On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 23, 7:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>>>> John G Harris wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead > >>>>> of conflating them to ad hominems. > >>>>> HTH > >>>> No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself > >>>> again. > >>> You like talking about me, don't you? > >> I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation, > >> but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as > >> a person. > > > I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self- > > righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group. ;) > > Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me. > You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense. > > >> I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument, > >> that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype". > > > We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances > > as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a > > comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how > > confusing that can be? > > Apparently, it is very confusing for you... So confusing that I wrote an in-depth analysis of the issue about fifty posts back. :) > > In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object) > it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in > f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v. That was demonstrated by my earlier post. > > Apparently, you have not known the answer to the question all this time > and you're now only able to answer it incorrectly. That would seem impossible given the timeline, wouldn't it? I asked you to re-read the thread from the start. :) > > >> If I consider you a peer, then I consider > >> misunderstandings to be shared responsibilities. > > > Neither are you my peer. > > Hard to imagine that I'm not your peer, in the sense that we probably > both have knowledge about software development. I'm here to exchange > knowledge, and to learn, and to discuss. I can't really see people on > USENET as anything but peers and fellow programmers. You are speaking in a general sense. I was not as this is a very specific discussion (and group). > Again, it is a > causal grace that dominates the Internet, that we approach each other as > equals. I didn't approach you. I just had to deal with dozens of rapid-fire queries, each roughly the same. It's irritating. > Asking a question of a newsgroup does not put a person in a > position of being admonished. I am not inclined to accept admonishments > from strangers. Stick around. :) > > > But on this subject, that's clearly a false assumption. I'm telling > > you that a new one of you blows in here every other week. It's always > > the same story. > > If the turnover of this newsgroup is that bad, you should really look at > what's gone off the tracks with the community. There's no turnover. Most of the people I refer to end up sticking around forever (for better or worse). > You'd hope that people > would come and stay. They do. > If they are coming and probably, like me, standing > their ground when they are condescended to, they are going to leave. You are imagining things again. > It > is a shame if that is the case. Good thing it is not (well, depending on how you look at it). > > Truly, if it is the same story that someone engages with you until you > insult them, then don't you feel that this pattern begs some > self-observation? You are telling a different story than I am. That seems to be a recurring problem in this thread. > > >> Asking a question of someone on through the > >> Internet is not an admission of educational inferiority. > > > Who said it was? But I put it to you that you are relatively ignorant > > about JS and browser scripting. You'd do well to listen and learn for > > a while and stop trying to lecture me on Usenet protocol. > > I don't believe that listening to you would teach me very much, I'm > afraid. That's what they all say; and yet, they keep asking me questions. Go figure. :) > There is way to much noise in the signal. That too. > Maybe it's just me, > but I'm not really responding to well to your rather Socratic method of > conveying information. And I'm not really responding well to your neurotic method of asking questions. > I much prefer direct answers to sincere > questions. The sort given by the other poster. The other poster? Nobody has added anything new to this discussion in about a hundred posts. > I'm able to pocket that > information and move on. Please do. :) > > >>>> You were hammering home some point about what is or is not > >>>> confusing to other people, not speaking directly to inquiries. > >>> Oddly enough, that was the point of the discussion until you tried to > >>> turn it into a private tutoring session. > >> See above. I didn't receive any answers from you for my questions. Only > >> from another poster, who answered the one question I had. > > > You are seeing what you want to see. My question is why you want to > > see such things (perhaps you've formed some sort of knee-jerk opinion > > of me?) In other words, I answered your question at least a half- > > dozen times before the same answer (with a slightly different > > explanation) was posted. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to > > teach you anything. Again, this is a discussion group and not a help > > desk. > > You're not teaching me anything. You're not able to answer simple > questions. Your whole line of reasoning has been that you've already > answer the question and that I'm supposed to comb over your writings and > extract it, but that is not how I want to spend my time. Again, this is not a help desk. And why should I repeat what has already been posted? Because you are too lazy to go back and read carefully? > > I don't imagine that you're obliged to me in any way at all. Your words don't match your (many) actions. > > >> To use the newsgroup as a help desk would > >> mean that I was asking a (likely) time sensitive question to an > >> implementation. > > > Dammit. You definitely seemed pressed for time on the question. Your > > replies were relentless that it be spelled out for you immediately, to > > the point where you started to complain about the bad service. > > Never did I complain about bad service. I am not working on or in > JavaScript today. This is all a doodle. Yes, you got quite irritable when I refused to repeat myself endlessly. > > >> I'm simply another USENET participant engaging in a > >> threaded conversation about the topic at hand. > > > No, as I see it, you didn't seem interested in the topic at hand. You > > veered off onto some quasi-related topic that, in turn, did not > > interest me. > > I've only been trying to pin down the meaning of "instance" and > "instanceof". At this point I'm only responding to your > mis-characterizations. LOL. I made no mis-characterizations. I explained the differences to a tee at the very start of the thread. That's why I told you to go back and re-read for comprehension. > > >>>> You still have not > >>>> address the point I made in the other branch of the thread, that > >>>> "instance" is a valid description of an "instance" of a "prototype" in > >>>> JavaScript. > >>> I'm through repeating myself for your admitted lack of benefit. Best > >>> of luck! > >> You never repeated yourself and you never answered the question. > > > If that's your take, you didn't read my numerous posts to this thread > > (several of which were replies to your posts). Your homework is to re- > > read the entire thread from start to finish and to post an essay on > > where you went wrong. > > That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Agreed! :)
From: Garrett Smith on 23 Jul 2010 23:07 On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > John G Harris wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez >> wrote: >> [snip informative explanation] > > Thank you. Learn something new every day. > Example: function Person(){} Person.prototype = {}; var a = new Person; var isBefore = a instanceof Person Person.prototype = {}; [isBefore, a instanceof Person] Result: [true, false] (please don't feed the trolls). -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 23:18 On Jul 23, 11:07 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > > John G Harris wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 at 11:53:30, in comp.lang.javascript, Alan Gutierrez > >> wrote: > > [snip informative explanation] > > > > > Thank you. Learn something new every day. > > Example: > > function Person(){} > Person.prototype = {}; > var a = new Person; Use the call operator. Thanks. > var isBefore = a instanceof Person > Person.prototype = {}; > [isBefore, a instanceof Person] > > Result: > [true, false] > That's a virtually identical reworking of an example I had posted at the very beginning of the thread. Somebody else posts it and you call it "informative"? ISTM that you have popped in here more than a few times to call my explanation(s) wrong, even going so far as to post a ridiculous half-example that somewhat seemed (to beginners) to demonstrate an opposite point (i.e. the instanceof operator is not confusing). So make up your mind.
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 23:24
David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 23, 7:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> John G Harris wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead >>>>>>> of conflating them to ad hominems. >>>>>>> HTH >>>>>> No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself >>>>>> again. >>>>> You like talking about me, don't you? >>>> I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation, >>>> but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as >>>> a person. >>> I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self- >>> righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group. ;) >> Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me. >> You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense. >> >>>> I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument, >>>> that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype". >>> We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances >>> as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a >>> comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how >>> confusing that can be? >> In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object) >> it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in >> f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v. > > That was demonstrated by my earlier post. You don't see how your definition differs from the correct definition? >> That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree. > > Agreed! I'm content with this outcome. I'm heartened by the exchange with two other posters. I'm quite certain that we're not going to resolve anything at this point. I will note that you owe me an apology for calling me a creep and a blow-hard. I never resorted to calling you names. I don't know you well enough to accept insults even accompanied by emoticons, so you will have to address that if should we ever find that we have to work together. Otherwise, to ingratiate myself to other readers of this newsgroup, I will allow you to have the last word, allowing anything more that you have to say, admonishments, homework assignments, or insults to go un-addressed. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy |