4 ms·

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

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?
      - cbsmith 13y ago
        > Keep in mind that he criticised javascript for not No, I didn't criticize JavaScript. I criticized the _choice of JavaScript_ for the task. There's a world of difference there. > 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. Actually, as I stated that there were a number of factors that pointed to it not being a good fit, and that was just an example of one of them. I'm kind of shocked that a statement like that somehow lead to so much controversy. > I don't find this to be a compelling argument though. Cleary. > 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. Yeah, it really, really wasn't a thesis. It was a single point , and not presented as a conclusive point, but as an easily identifiable and understood indicator of a cause for concern. And I really take issue with the "pretty debunked" characterization. I can't believe you'd say that a feature that over 15 years after it was initially conceived and popularized, after a dozen revisions, nearly a half dozen major revisions, and lord knows how many countless reimplementations, wasn't even consistently implemented on the language's primary platforms, was a byproduct not of the revisions of the core language but rather of another effort to add a specific feature (WebGL), and which you yourself described as being standardized "any year now", is a "standardized" feature of the language. > There's no other point. Actually, I made other points. I didn't go in to them in much depth because you seemed unable to accept even the most basic points and didn't offer any counter points (despite me inviting you to). > There's no other point. No detailed analysis about exactly what it is about javascript that he thinks is unsuitable. Just vague handwaving. Perhaps I should feel bad about this, given the detailed analysis of precisely what it is about javascript that you think is so suitable. Just a lot of flaming. > Do you have anything to add which might flesh this out? You do know the difference between an argument and a vague complaint right? You might want to consider what possible motive I could have at this point for attempting to further explain my point.
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

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?
    - cbsmith 13y ago
      > Keep in mind that he criticised javascript for not No, I didn't criticize JavaScript. I criticized the _choice of JavaScript_ for the task. There's a world of difference there. > 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. Actually, as I stated that there were a number of factors that pointed to it not being a good fit, and that was just an example of one of them. I'm kind of shocked that a statement like that somehow lead to so much controversy. > I don't find this to be a compelling argument though. Cleary. > 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. Yeah, it really, really wasn't a thesis. It was a single point , and not presented as a conclusive point, but as an easily identifiable and understood indicator of a cause for concern. And I really take issue with the "pretty debunked" characterization. I can't believe you'd say that a feature that over 15 years after it was initially conceived and popularized, after a dozen revisions, nearly a half dozen major revisions, and lord knows how many countless reimplementations, wasn't even consistently implemented on the language's primary platforms, was a byproduct not of the revisions of the core language but rather of another effort to add a specific feature (WebGL), and which you yourself described as being standardized "any year now", is a "standardized" feature of the language. > There's no other point. Actually, I made other points. I didn't go in to them in much depth because you seemed unable to accept even the most basic points and didn't offer any counter points (despite me inviting you to). > There's no other point. No detailed analysis about exactly what it is about javascript that he thinks is unsuitable. Just vague handwaving. Perhaps I should feel bad about this, given the detailed analysis of precisely what it is about javascript that you think is so suitable. Just a lot of flaming. > Do you have anything to add which might flesh this out? You do know the difference between an argument and a vague complaint right? You might want to consider what possible motive I could have at this point for attempting to further explain my point.

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.