4 ms·

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

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.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      I think we got off on the wrong foot here, and I find that I am pursuing this to absurdity. I'm gonna try and set this right. In a sense, you are right, there is nothing about javascript that makes it particularly suitable for programming hardware. Nothing at all, for many reasons that you kind of hinted at but, as you say, never really went into in any depth. The main plus for javascript, is that it's accessible to people who already know javascript, and there's quite a lot of them. The other plus, potentially, is that existing software may be able to run on it. However, as I pointed out in a much much older comment, truly, it's not clear to me really what the use cases for this device are, other than that it's a way to run javascript on hardware, and some people might want that. (as I point out in another more recent comment, if it were my own project I would have chosen differently) My goal was, initially, to just try to turn the conversation away from language wars toward actually discussing the device. and its merits. I have clearly failed. What I've been trying to get you to do was, rather than just say "I don't think javascript is suitable", to actually go into some detail about that. over time you revealed that you believe that being able to deal natively with binary protocols is a core feature of a language suited for hardware. While I concede that this is a late added feature to javascript, it is a core feature of node.js, which is the api this hardware device purports to emulate. node.js is a kind of defacto standard at this point, which is good enough. To my knowledge there are no standards documents for lua, python or ruby and people have no problem using those languages. So what else is there that gives you the willies? You seem to believe you know something, trying to impart some knowledge you have, but I can't get at what it is, because you may have assumed you said all kinds of things you haven't actually said. (such as, the assumption that I needed to intuit, about binary protocols)

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.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    I think we got off on the wrong foot here, and I find that I am pursuing this to absurdity. I'm gonna try and set this right. In a sense, you are right, there is nothing about javascript that makes it particularly suitable for programming hardware. Nothing at all, for many reasons that you kind of hinted at but, as you say, never really went into in any depth. The main plus for javascript, is that it's accessible to people who already know javascript, and there's quite a lot of them. The other plus, potentially, is that existing software may be able to run on it. However, as I pointed out in a much much older comment, truly, it's not clear to me really what the use cases for this device are, other than that it's a way to run javascript on hardware, and some people might want that. (as I point out in another more recent comment, if it were my own project I would have chosen differently) My goal was, initially, to just try to turn the conversation away from language wars toward actually discussing the device. and its merits. I have clearly failed. What I've been trying to get you to do was, rather than just say "I don't think javascript is suitable", to actually go into some detail about that. over time you revealed that you believe that being able to deal natively with binary protocols is a core feature of a language suited for hardware. While I concede that this is a late added feature to javascript, it is a core feature of node.js, which is the api this hardware device purports to emulate. node.js is a kind of defacto standard at this point, which is good enough. To my knowledge there are no standards documents for lua, python or ruby and people have no problem using those languages. So what else is there that gives you the willies? You seem to believe you know something, trying to impart some knowledge you have, but I can't get at what it is, because you may have assumed you said all kinds of things you haven't actually said. (such as, the assumption that I needed to intuit, about binary protocols)