4 ms·

I think you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. I was saying that you can’t implement JavaScript generators with JavaScript async/await, even

I think you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. I was saying that you can’t implement JavaScript generators with JavaScript async/await, even in your hypothetical scenario where they’d been developed in the opposite order. The reason you can’t is because JavaScript async has specific semantics that are incompatible with JavaScript generators. It isn’t that my perspective is particularly skewed towards JavaScript, rather that the language semantics we’re discussing have semantics that you can’t generalize away entirely. And it isn’t so much that I don’t see the generalization you’re describing. You’re presumably coming from a place where you think it’s helpful to educate about the generalization, and that’s fine. But I’d suggest that when someone is clearly informed enough on the topic to clarify a language-specific nuance that diverges from the generalization, it probably isn’t because they’re ignorant, and it’s probably going to come off as rather condescending to respond as if they are.

WorldMaker 2y ago
The topic at hand started as a generalization: "imagine a world where". That alternative world might not even have a Javascript. If you meant to make your point about the specifics of Javascript, I did not catch that change in topic and desire to talk about specifics, sorry.
- eyelidlessness 2y ago
  Maybe you can “imagine a world” where you joined a conversation that was already taking place, about an article that framed the topic. It’s weird, and still rather condescending, to double down by suggesting I changed the topic which I was already engaged in before your imagination set the topic you think we were discussing. No need to apologize! But maybe, for your own benefit, go back and read through the thread again without trying to retcon your correctness onto it.
  - grddvbytdb 2y ago
    It was pretty obvious that the person was saying “hey generators and async/await are in some sense dual”. You’re unhinged.
    - eyelidlessness 2y ago
      Weird to create a whole new account just to insult me but sure, I’m unhinged.
  - WorldMaker 2y ago
    "Imagine a world" is a common rhetorical way to start to an aside designed to be a deep generalization/alternate universe thought experiment. Yes, it was an intentional change of topic towards an aside. When you started your comment by quoting that specific phrase I easily assumed that you were interested in following my aside into generalities and/or alternate universe thought experiments. I didn't retcon anything, I intentionally created a fork in the conversation with my aside and assumed that by engaging with it you wanted to follow me down that aside. There's a lot of fun things we could have talked about if you had, and I regret that that wasn't what you were looking for. I'm sorry that "imagine a world" wasn't a strong enough indicator of an aside to the thread above. That said, you've now called me condescending twice and I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks and will not engage with you further on this thread. I hesitated to even write this comment. (I also don't engage by creating "sock puppet" accounts, and I see the other comment accusing me of "sock puppeting" as a third, further unwarranted, ad hominem attack in this thread.) I don't think I need to reread the thread to know what happened in the communication mistakes, but I would suggest that you try to refrain from using attacks to deal with what were simple communication mistakes in the future.
    - eyelidlessness 2y ago
      It isn’t an attack to say that something comes off as condescending. It’s an observation that it comes off that way. It was also a good faith effort to invite you to understand that observation, because I didn’t think that was your intent. I didn’t accuse you of creating a sock puppet account. I observed that the other response came from a newly created account, with that single comment posted about the same time. That observation wasn’t addressed to you, it was addressed to that new account.

WorldMaker 2y ago

The topic at hand started as a generalization: "imagine a world where". That alternative world might not even have a Javascript. If you meant to make your point about the specifics of Javascript, I did not catch that change in topic and desire to talk about specifics, sorry.

eyelidlessness 2y ago
Maybe you can “imagine a world” where you joined a conversation that was already taking place, about an article that framed the topic. It’s weird, and still rather condescending, to double down by suggesting I changed the topic which I was already engaged in before your imagination set the topic you think we were discussing. No need to apologize! But maybe, for your own benefit, go back and read through the thread again without trying to retcon your correctness onto it.
- grddvbytdb 2y ago
  It was pretty obvious that the person was saying “hey generators and async/await are in some sense dual”. You’re unhinged.
  - eyelidlessness 2y ago
    Weird to create a whole new account just to insult me but sure, I’m unhinged.
- WorldMaker 2y ago
  "Imagine a world" is a common rhetorical way to start to an aside designed to be a deep generalization/alternate universe thought experiment. Yes, it was an intentional change of topic towards an aside. When you started your comment by quoting that specific phrase I easily assumed that you were interested in following my aside into generalities and/or alternate universe thought experiments. I didn't retcon anything, I intentionally created a fork in the conversation with my aside and assumed that by engaging with it you wanted to follow me down that aside. There's a lot of fun things we could have talked about if you had, and I regret that that wasn't what you were looking for. I'm sorry that "imagine a world" wasn't a strong enough indicator of an aside to the thread above. That said, you've now called me condescending twice and I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks and will not engage with you further on this thread. I hesitated to even write this comment. (I also don't engage by creating "sock puppet" accounts, and I see the other comment accusing me of "sock puppeting" as a third, further unwarranted, ad hominem attack in this thread.) I don't think I need to reread the thread to know what happened in the communication mistakes, but I would suggest that you try to refrain from using attacks to deal with what were simple communication mistakes in the future.
  - eyelidlessness 2y ago
    It isn’t an attack to say that something comes off as condescending. It’s an observation that it comes off that way. It was also a good faith effort to invite you to understand that observation, because I didn’t think that was your intent. I didn’t accuse you of creating a sock puppet account. I observed that the other response came from a newly created account, with that single comment posted about the same time. That observation wasn’t addressed to you, it was addressed to that new account.