2 ms·

But there is lots of code that relies upon that behaviour. We can argue about the exact source of it if you like, but if the language execution model is depend

by gdp 17y ago

But there is lots of code that relies upon that behaviour. We can argue about the exact source of it if you like, but if the language execution model is dependent on that behaviour, then the language execution model is flawed, which was my original point, I think.

axod 17y ago
There's no js code that relies on <script> tags using the same execution context, because <script> is not js code. It's an HTML tag. It's outside of the scope of javascript. It's the Browser security model that needs toughening up.
- gdp 17y ago
  You have chosen a particularly strange definition of "code". <script> var a = "hello, world"; </script> <script> doSomething(a); </script> My program is either syntactically invalid (because 'a' is undefined) or functionally incorrect (because it doesn't do anything) if you treat these blocks separately. This is Javascript code that relies upon script tags using the same execution context. Once again, I (recursively) refer you to this comment: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=843320 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=843320
  - axod 17y ago
    I'm tired of this now, you don't seem to be reading comments, and putting up silly straw men. You're well aware we're talking about <script> tags when used to load external source from other domains, so your example above is pretty irrelevant. Good luck on your quest to rid the world of javascript!
    - gdp 17y ago
      You appear to be relying on the clairvoyant abilities of those you correspond with. My example could be re-factored into exactly the same situation you're talking about by substituting the body of each script tag with two files that contain the same code, but the example is valid either way. Really, I don't understand the hostility here. Surely this is a worthwhile discussion to have? Either we can establish that it's not a problem that needs fixing, or we can establish that something needs fixing, and identify where it is. Implying that I'm on some kind of vendetta just because I disagree with you about the source and nature of the flaws in javascript seems a little bit juvenile. These are genuinely-held opinions, and I'd appreciate it if you would not assume that I'm being disingenuous just because I disagree with you.

by gdp 17y ago

axod 17y ago

There's no js code that relies on <script> tags using the same execution context, because <script> is not js code. It's an HTML tag. It's outside of the scope of javascript. It's the Browser security model that needs toughening up.

gdp 17y ago
You have chosen a particularly strange definition of "code". <script> var a = "hello, world"; </script> <script> doSomething(a); </script> My program is either syntactically invalid (because 'a' is undefined) or functionally incorrect (because it doesn't do anything) if you treat these blocks separately. This is Javascript code that relies upon script tags using the same execution context. Once again, I (recursively) refer you to this comment: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=843320 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=843320
- axod 17y ago
  I'm tired of this now, you don't seem to be reading comments, and putting up silly straw men. You're well aware we're talking about <script> tags when used to load external source from other domains, so your example above is pretty irrelevant. Good luck on your quest to rid the world of javascript!
  - gdp 17y ago
    You appear to be relying on the clairvoyant abilities of those you correspond with. My example could be re-factored into exactly the same situation you're talking about by substituting the body of each script tag with two files that contain the same code, but the example is valid either way. Really, I don't understand the hostility here. Surely this is a worthwhile discussion to have? Either we can establish that it's not a problem that needs fixing, or we can establish that something needs fixing, and identify where it is. Implying that I'm on some kind of vendetta just because I disagree with you about the source and nature of the flaws in javascript seems a little bit juvenile. These are genuinely-held opinions, and I'd appreciate it if you would not assume that I'm being disingenuous just because I disagree with you.