3 ms·
Dismissing weak arguments is easy. Try imagining what a strong argument for the author's point would look like, and then respond to that. On the topic of obje
by pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
Dismissing weak arguments is easy. Try imagining what a strong argument for the author's point would look like, and then respond to that.
On the topic of object browsers, I'd argue that "no significant innovation" has been made at the intersection of object browsers and Web browsers since around 2001 when Joe Hewitt checked in the original DOM Inspector for Netscape, aside from possibly the inline display of the results of expressions evaluated in the console. (DOM Inspector didn't have such a console.)
In many ways, browser devtools are worse than the DOM Inspector that was baked into Firefox 1.0. The node tree was fast, and you could open up not just a view for more than one object, but more than one view of a single object, too. Meanwhile, in the tools baked into major browsers, I can't even look at the "Layout" pane and the CSS "Rules" pane at the same time. Want to have the document's DOM tree on the screen while looking at some JSON returned by an AJAX call? Too bad.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- seandenigris 6y ago> Dismissing weak arguments is easy. Try imagining what a strong argument for the author's point would look like, and then respond to that. This is great advice for going beyond the tiny world - limited by bias, habit, etc - in which I (and all people) live! It also is a communication formula guaranteeing better relationships and more civil and productive discussions. While a bit outdated, hyperbolic, and with the familiar trade offs of c2’s wonderful community editing experiment (e.g. incoherency), there is some real gold there. Just the references (e.g. to Ivan Sutherland) are a passport to a much better alternate universe