7 ms·

Okay so he/sh was preaching to your choir. But s/he needs to work a little harder to persuade or teach someone who isn't already convinced. I never said javasc

Okay so he/sh was preaching to your choir. But s/he needs to work a little harder to persuade or teach someone who isn't already convinced. I never said javascript could do it all. I said that it happens to not be true that javascript doesn't have a native way of dealing with binary. It turns out it does. that's not everything. That's one thing.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>But s/he needs to work a little harder to persuade or teach someone who isn't already convinced It was pretty clear. You just didn't seem to be in learning mode. Your "old man" comment was dismissive on its face and you made assumptions rather than ask thoughtful questions. You said yourself that you understood once you went back and re-read. There wasn't anything new there. >that's not everything. That's one thing. It's the thing with regard to that discussion.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. He had nothing but dismissive comments about the language. There was nothing to learn or ask questions about. it only finally slipped out of him almost by accident what he was actually trying to get at, and even that isn't much of a relevant point. I don't buy your depiction of events at all.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    And just when I thought you were finally getting it. From cbsmith's very first post on the thread: >We're talking about a language that still doesn't have a standard way of reading and writing bytes... for talking to hardware. Think about that for a moment. You directly took exception to this and even quoted from that part of the post in doing so. You don't have to "buy" my depiction. Just go back and read (for at least the third time, apparently).
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      What's your point? You quoted a fact that he stated, which happens to be wrong, and I pointed out that it was wrong. That's evidence for my view of things, not yours. It's not a teaching moment, he had nothing useful to say. He still doesn't so far as I can see. Where we are now is let's just re-iterate the same wrong point over and over again, and pretend like it means something. Maybe if you're so concerned about me getting it, you can point out what his actual point is, which you seem to think is so obvious? spell it out for me.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        My apologies. You are correct that I thought it was obvious. I'd started typing a reply that outlined what just happened, but it would essentially be a strange Cliff's notes recap of the thread. I'm not sure that I want to continue or that it would be sufficient in any case. So, apparently I'm not as concerned about your getting it as I initially thought I was. Perhaps someone else can jump in here and "spell it out" for you but, as it is, I'm content to leave things where they are. Good luck.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        well, you don't have to recap the whole thread. just write something useful or insightful. Keep in mind that he criticised javascript for not having a standard way of reading and writing binary bytes (even though it does) and then suggested lua (which does not, at least not anymore than javascript does). My vague understanding of the point he was trying to make is that since javascript wasn't originally designed to deal with hardware, it's not a good fit. I don't find this to be a compelling argument though. It's more of like, a thesis, with no supporting evidence or premises, and the only point being the binary bytes thing, which is pretty debunked. There's no other point. No detailed analysis about exactly what it is about javascript that he thinks is unsuitable. Just vague handwaving. Do you have anything to add which might flesh this out? You do know the difference between an argument and a vague complaint right?
        13y ago
  - cbsmith 13y ago
    > He had nothing but dismissive comments about the language. The comments were not intended to be dismissive about the language; I'm kind of surprised that statements with qualifiers like "might" would be interpreted as being "dismissive". Perhaps you didn't notice them? If you look at my comments, while I was pretty strident about the facts, I took great pains to extensively qualify my opinion. To illustrate, I'll quote from my initial comments to you with highlights to draw your attention to the qualifiers: > ...it might not qualify as "a good programming language" for the job... > ... Do you think it is maybe possible that a language that had standard... just might be better suited for talking to hardware?... > ... Maybe JavaScript makes working with hardware more accessible than other choices, but I doubt it... Now, no question I was expressing a difference of opinion, but I think if I had said any more times and ways that my critique wasn't of the language in general, but of its suitability for the task in particular, I'd have felt like a broken record. Not only wasn't I dismissive of the language in general, but I wasn't even dismissive of the application of the language for the problem in particular. I expressed that I didn't think it was a good idea, but I explained my basis for the opinion and qualified it extensively, to the point of stating that I could be wrong even if I didn't think so. I honestly can't explain your characterization of my comments other than speculating that perhaps you came in to the discussion already wearing your language advocacy hat, and that framed & distorted your perception of the discussion. This is kind of obvious, but given the context I think it might be necessary to say it anyway. Perfectly good programming languages tend to have strengths, weaknesses, and areas of focus (it's an inevitable consequence of both language design and Darwinian forces that dominate the marketplace of ideas). I don't think any of the flaws I pointed towards are necessarily bad points about the language and in certain domains are actually great strengths (probabilistic parsers are a great idea for web content). > it only finally slipped out of him almost by accident what he was actually trying to get at, and even that isn't much of a relevant point. I think a better way of describing it is that it "finally slipped in to you". ;-) When something is said multiple times in different ways, that's not "slipping out". Obviously, you didn't understand what I was communicating, and no doubt this is partly a reflection on my own failings to communicate effectively. I apologize for not doing better. However, you might want to consider the possibility that particularly given the limitations of the medium, the nature of communication failures, and that my point was deemed clear as day by at least one other 3rd party... you may have missed something. Maybe we can learn something from this experience.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>But s/he needs to work a little harder to persuade or teach someone who isn't already convinced It was pretty clear. You just didn't seem to be in learning mode. Your "old man" comment was dismissive on its face and you made assumptions rather than ask thoughtful questions. You said yourself that you understood once you went back and re-read. There wasn't anything new there. >that's not everything. That's one thing. It's the thing with regard to that discussion.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. He had nothing but dismissive comments about the language. There was nothing to learn or ask questions about. it only finally slipped out of him almost by accident what he was actually trying to get at, and even that isn't much of a relevant point. I don't buy your depiction of events at all.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  And just when I thought you were finally getting it. From cbsmith's very first post on the thread: >We're talking about a language that still doesn't have a standard way of reading and writing bytes... for talking to hardware. Think about that for a moment. You directly took exception to this and even quoted from that part of the post in doing so. You don't have to "buy" my depiction. Just go back and read (for at least the third time, apparently).
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    What's your point? You quoted a fact that he stated, which happens to be wrong, and I pointed out that it was wrong. That's evidence for my view of things, not yours. It's not a teaching moment, he had nothing useful to say. He still doesn't so far as I can see. Where we are now is let's just re-iterate the same wrong point over and over again, and pretend like it means something. Maybe if you're so concerned about me getting it, you can point out what his actual point is, which you seem to think is so obvious? spell it out for me.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      My apologies. You are correct that I thought it was obvious. I'd started typing a reply that outlined what just happened, but it would essentially be a strange Cliff's notes recap of the thread. I'm not sure that I want to continue or that it would be sufficient in any case. So, apparently I'm not as concerned about your getting it as I initially thought I was. Perhaps someone else can jump in here and "spell it out" for you but, as it is, I'm content to leave things where they are. Good luck.
      - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        well, you don't have to recap the whole thread. just write something useful or insightful. Keep in mind that he criticised javascript for not having a standard way of reading and writing binary bytes (even though it does) and then suggested lua (which does not, at least not anymore than javascript does). My vague understanding of the point he was trying to make is that since javascript wasn't originally designed to deal with hardware, it's not a good fit. I don't find this to be a compelling argument though. It's more of like, a thesis, with no supporting evidence or premises, and the only point being the binary bytes thing, which is pretty debunked. There's no other point. No detailed analysis about exactly what it is about javascript that he thinks is unsuitable. Just vague handwaving. Do you have anything to add which might flesh this out? You do know the difference between an argument and a vague complaint right?
        13y ago
- cbsmith 13y ago
  > He had nothing but dismissive comments about the language. The comments were not intended to be dismissive about the language; I'm kind of surprised that statements with qualifiers like "might" would be interpreted as being "dismissive". Perhaps you didn't notice them? If you look at my comments, while I was pretty strident about the facts, I took great pains to extensively qualify my opinion. To illustrate, I'll quote from my initial comments to you with highlights to draw your attention to the qualifiers: > ...it might not qualify as "a good programming language" for the job... > ... Do you think it is maybe possible that a language that had standard... just might be better suited for talking to hardware?... > ... Maybe JavaScript makes working with hardware more accessible than other choices, but I doubt it... Now, no question I was expressing a difference of opinion, but I think if I had said any more times and ways that my critique wasn't of the language in general, but of its suitability for the task in particular, I'd have felt like a broken record. Not only wasn't I dismissive of the language in general, but I wasn't even dismissive of the application of the language for the problem in particular. I expressed that I didn't think it was a good idea, but I explained my basis for the opinion and qualified it extensively, to the point of stating that I could be wrong even if I didn't think so. I honestly can't explain your characterization of my comments other than speculating that perhaps you came in to the discussion already wearing your language advocacy hat, and that framed & distorted your perception of the discussion. This is kind of obvious, but given the context I think it might be necessary to say it anyway. Perfectly good programming languages tend to have strengths, weaknesses, and areas of focus (it's an inevitable consequence of both language design and Darwinian forces that dominate the marketplace of ideas). I don't think any of the flaws I pointed towards are necessarily bad points about the language and in certain domains are actually great strengths (probabilistic parsers are a great idea for web content). > it only finally slipped out of him almost by accident what he was actually trying to get at, and even that isn't much of a relevant point. I think a better way of describing it is that it "finally slipped in to you". ;-) When something is said multiple times in different ways, that's not "slipping out". Obviously, you didn't understand what I was communicating, and no doubt this is partly a reflection on my own failings to communicate effectively. I apologize for not doing better. However, you might want to consider the possibility that particularly given the limitations of the medium, the nature of communication failures, and that my point was deemed clear as day by at least one other 3rd party... you may have missed something. Maybe we can learn something from this experience.