4 ms·

Do you think a js parser should also cope with a 10GB source file with nesting a million levels deep? I think it's pretty sane to suggest that a single stateme

Do you think a js parser should also cope with a 10GB source file with nesting a million levels deep? I think it's pretty sane to suggest that a single statement won't be 4MB in length.

ajross 14y ago
If I have a machine with many gigabytes of memory and ~100MB of stack space available (the latter requires some tuning at thread-creation time with current runtimes, but the former is frankly routine)? Yes. Yes, I'd expect my software to handle it correctly. The fact that you think otherwise is precisely the problem. If you don't want to write correct software (which, frankly, isn't any harder than writing broken parsers) you might want to reconsider your career choice.
- akkartik 14y ago
  Easy, tiger. Be nice. It's a plausible line of reasoning; getting personal interferes with the education process. You can't persuade if you alienate.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Fair enough. I was terribly impolite. Though to be fair, sticks (via public shaming, in this case I guess) work as well as carrots often. The "coming to the defense of clearly broken software" thing (which happens far, far too much) is a pet peeve. People who make arguments like that are generally the ones who write code like Opera's parser.
    - akkartik 14y ago
      Yeah, 99% of everything is crap. Large companies aren't immune to that. If anything, the opposite. <shrug> whatchagonnado? :) Public shaming works to stamp out activities that the shamee knows to be bad/anti-social. I think the case here is well-intentioned.
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        Public shaming also only works if the shamer knows they are right. I love giving a shaming as much as anyone else (maybe more?), but it's not a posture that's compatible with learning. It requires becoming entrenched.
    - xentronium 14y ago
      When you are not right, attempts at public shaming look fairly stupid.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  OK, Lets see. Do you think you should be able to create a billion files on a default ext3 file system without issues? Because you won't be able to, even if you have the space for them. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to put in some sane limits, because of constraints elsewhere. To call software that has sane limits to cover 99.9% of usage patterns "broken" is pretty silly. If you think as a software developer, you never have to make compromises, or make a tough call on what 99.9% of users will do, you're being naive.
  - samspot 14y ago
    Yup, there will always be bugs, many of them not important enough to ever fix.
tomjen3 14y ago
Yes, I think it should. For a very simpel reason -- you are not implementing a new language, but writing a parser/evaluator for an already existing one. And you shouldn't change the language (as much as all of us have a beef with Javascript).

Do you think a js parser should also cope with a 10GB source file with nesting a million levels deep? I think it's pretty sane to suggest that a single statement won't be 4MB in length.

ajross 14y ago

If I have a machine with many gigabytes of memory and ~100MB of stack space available (the latter requires some tuning at thread-creation time with current runtimes, but the former is frankly routine)? Yes. Yes, I'd expect my software to handle it correctly. The fact that you think otherwise is precisely the problem. If you don't want to write correct software (which, frankly, isn't any harder than writing broken parsers) you might want to reconsider your career choice.

akkartik 14y ago
Easy, tiger. Be nice. It's a plausible line of reasoning; getting personal interferes with the education process. You can't persuade if you alienate.
- ajross 14y ago
  Fair enough. I was terribly impolite. Though to be fair, sticks (via public shaming, in this case I guess) work as well as carrots often. The "coming to the defense of clearly broken software" thing (which happens far, far too much) is a pet peeve. People who make arguments like that are generally the ones who write code like Opera's parser.
  - akkartik 14y ago
    Yeah, 99% of everything is crap. Large companies aren't immune to that. If anything, the opposite. <shrug> whatchagonnado? :) Public shaming works to stamp out activities that the shamee knows to be bad/anti-social. I think the case here is well-intentioned.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      Public shaming also only works if the shamer knows they are right. I love giving a shaming as much as anyone else (maybe more?), but it's not a posture that's compatible with learning. It requires becoming entrenched.
  - xentronium 14y ago
    When you are not right, attempts at public shaming look fairly stupid.
mibbitier 14y ago
OK, Lets see. Do you think you should be able to create a billion files on a default ext3 file system without issues? Because you won't be able to, even if you have the space for them. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to put in some sane limits, because of constraints elsewhere. To call software that has sane limits to cover 99.9% of usage patterns "broken" is pretty silly. If you think as a software developer, you never have to make compromises, or make a tough call on what 99.9% of users will do, you're being naive.
- samspot 14y ago
  Yup, there will always be bugs, many of them not important enough to ever fix.

tomjen3 14y ago

Yes, I think it should. For a very simpel reason -- you are not implementing a new language, but writing a parser/evaluator for an already existing one. And you shouldn't change the language (as much as all of us have a beef with Javascript).