3 ms·
It sounds like you are looking at anything you can find, grasping at straws, to rationalize insanity. So much of what you described is absent in the Level 2 and
by austincheney 5y ago
It sounds like you are looking at anything you can find, grasping at straws, to rationalize insanity. So much of what you described is absent in the Level 2 and Level 3 specifications. This is clear when your reasoning only makes sense using a 23 year old expired snapshot for an evolving technology that remains the backbone of frontend technology today.
* https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/ https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/
* https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/ https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/
The DOM is a language agnostic API written without any particular programming languages in mind and written to simultaneously and universally support both HTML and XML Schema.
These are stylistic and organizational concerns still not enough to qualify the irrational behaviors favoring jumping off a bridge. This is concerning considering learning to use the concepts takes substantially less time than learning the APIs of modern JavaScript frameworks developers favor. There remains far more to this that is psychologically focused regardless of any technology.
- jerf 5y agoTechnologies maintaining reverse compatibility always contain echos of their beginnings. History matters. We still live with those wrong foundations chosen at the beginning. But if you just want to blame almost all developers everywhere across several decades for mysteriously being unwilling to engage with a simple and wonderful technology that has no flaws, feel free. It's easy, but it leads to no further understanding or wisdom.
- austincheney 5y agoBlaming the technology is not sufficient to explain the behavior. Ignoring that and putting your head in the sand isn’t an indicator of wisdom. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html