Newbie question about avoiding global variables

[Garrett Smith]

The statement in the FAQ would be true if there was only a single
example of "javascript" being used in that way. However, "javascript"
is widely used in that way.

Did anybody else read the meaning of that entry in that way?

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Did anybody else read the meaning of that entry in that way?

The entry is utter nonsense to begin with. There are no "dialects of
ECMAScript", there are (conforming) implementations of ECMAScript. And,
AISB, "javascript" in that context is a very unwise *invention*, not least
because it is used elsewhere by script-kiddies in a completely different
context. This group has seen what ambiguous terms like this lead to, and I
prefer not to see it again. It is the purpose of a FAQ to clarify, not to
make up terms so that they be used later.


PointedEars

 

[SteveYoungTbird]

The entry is utter nonsense to begin with. There are no "dialects of
ECMAScript", there are (conforming) implementations of ECMAScript. And,
AISB, "javascript" in that context is a very unwise *invention*, not least
because it is used elsewhere by script-kiddies in a completely different
context. This group has seen what ambiguous terms like this lead to, and I
prefer not to see it again. It is the purpose of a FAQ to clarify, not to
make up terms so that they be used later.


PointedEars

If you consider this FAQ entry to be "utter nonsense" why on earth did
you answer the OP, who informed us in the title of his post that he was
a "Newbie", with the comment "There is no "javascript"" and a link to
the FAQ?

Steve.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

If you consider this FAQ entry to be "utter nonsense" why on earth did
you answer the OP, who informed us in the title of his post that he was
a "Newbie", with the comment "There is no "javascript"" and a link to
the FAQ?

Because of the rest of the text.

Learn to quote.


PointedEars

 

[SteveYoungTbird]

Because of the rest of the text.

None of the rest of the text mentioned the name "javascript". Your
comment and link were specific to the part of the OP that mentioned
"javascript". The rest of the OP's question contained nothing that could
be answered by referring to the FAQ.

Learn to quote.

Please tell me what is wrong with the way I have quoted.

Steve.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

None of the rest of the text mentioned the name "javascript".

That's the point.

Please tell me what is wrong with the way I have quoted.

Signatures, delimited or not, are not to be quoted unless being referred to.


PointedEars

 

[John G Harris]

The point is that without telling about the runtime environment the term
"javascript" as a replacement term is pretty useless as statement made
about it can be both completely right and completely wrong, and source code
presented to be "javascript" code can be both syntactically correct and
incorrect, working and not working, concepts described with it correctly or
incorrectly, all depending on the runtime environment. Further, the term
promotes the common misconception that there would be only one language
with "dialects", where the diversity is clearly a lot greater than this.

<snip>

There are no cars.

There are only VWs, and Peugeots, and FIATs, and Jaguars, and Fords, and
Toyotas, and Kias, and ...

To illustrate this, I have seen an advert on a web page offering a
"Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep" for sale.

If someone says "I'm learning to drive a car" they are being hopelessly
imprecise and no-one will be able to give them sensible advice.

John

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

There are no cars.

....
This must be a first! A car anaolgy that fits!

/L

 

[preet]

will the read directory code ever get blocked on nortan antivirus ?

i had tons of problems with the file scripts already.

any inputs will be appreciated

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

There are no cars.

There are only VWs, and Peugeots, and FIATs, and Jaguars, and Fords, and
Toyotas, and Kias, and ...

Your analogy is flawed for reasons already given. You would be well-advised
to read the whole thread carefully before you try a counter-argument.


PointedEars

 

[John G Harris]

Your analogy

It's not an analogy : see a dictionary. It's the same foolish reasoning
applied to a different class of classes of objects.

is flawed

It's foolish, but not flawed.

for reasons already given.

1 You say 'javascript' is fuzzy, but so is 'cars'.

2 You say the word has been misused, but no-one can say 'cars' has never
been misused. And anyway, so what?

You would be well-advised
to read the whole thread

You mean sub-thread, of course. Learn the difference.

carefully before you try a counter-argument.

It's not an argument, it's an example.

It's not counter, it's the opposite of counter.


John

 

[RobG]

Argument at the silent majority.

No, it's an accurate reflection of the opinions expressed here and not
just in this thread. Consider your statement:

"[javascript] is pure invention by those who don't know
better or don't want to know better."

which is a generalisation aimed at discrediting anyone who disagrees
with your position. It is unsubstantiated by any post here, perhaps
you have a link to a resource that supports your opinion?

It is inference, not deduction, that lead you to believe that "node.js"
means that one library that only runs on that one script engine.  AISB,
"node.js" can be anything.

And "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" could be anyone, or several people. If
you were confused about what node.js is (I didn't know before this
thread) you could have asked.

If you insist on arguing minutae, you'll find it difficult to reach a
conclusion. I have noticed a trait of technical people to look for
answers by examining issues in ever more detail, forgetting to look at
the big picture to see if the original requirement was actually
satisfied. It is equivalent, in many respects, to premature
optimisation.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It's not an analogy : see a dictionary.

Well, if was not meant as an analogy (which I seriously doubt; even the
supporters of your case have understood it to be one), that only leaves its
being classified as nonsense.

It's the same foolish reasoning applied to a different class of classes
of objects.

No. "Cars" is the plural of an umbrella term which meaning has generally
been agreed on (it can be found in numerous dictionaries on both sides of
the Atlantic); it describes a set of objects with common features. (See
below.)

By contrast, first of all "javascript" is not a plural word, by which it is
running the risk of being misunderstood as a proper name instead of an
umbrella term. Second, even though some regard it as an umbrella term,
there is no general agreement as to its meaning (in particular, the
definition in the FAQ is one of many, and one that is not widely used
outside this newsgroup, if that); as a result, its use can only create
further confusion and misconception, especially here in the newsgroup.
Third, a fact that should not be underestimated, it is running a severe
risk of being subject to misspelling or misinterpretation simply because it
differs from terms with different meaning (common in and outside of the
newsgroup) only in character case.

It's foolish, but not flawed.

Yes, it is. IOW, it's apples and oranges.

1 You say 'javascript' is fuzzy, but so is 'cars'.

Fuzzyness is not the issue, but competing -- among them even nonsensical --
definitions in the same field of application, with the FAQ making the claim
that its definition would be the only relevant one for postings, even if
the posters have not read the FAQ yet. That is not only illogical, it is
utterly absurd, and -- shall we say -- kind of megalomaniac.

By contrast, when talking of "cars" nowadays without a specific context,
everybody knows or can know (by dictionary) that the subjects are
motorized, usually four-wheeled ground vehicles (automobiles). At least it
is clear that some kind of machine-powered transportation is involved, be
it by wheel, railway, cable, airship, or seaship, where the context of use
defines the specific meaning of the word.

[That has been different -- not referring to machine-powered one, but to
transportation still -- before steam-powered railway and later the
automobile entered into and horse-drawn vehicles fell out of common use,
when "car", short for "carriage" or "cart", from Latin carrus/carrum
("four-wheeled baggage waggon"), over Anglo-Norman and Middle-English
carre ("cart") or Gaulish karros ("chariot"), was referring to an animal-
drawn, usually four wheeled ground vehicle.]

Especially, none of various "*.cars" or "*.cars.*" groups on Usenet in
several top-level hiarchies (so also several countries) deal with anything
else but motorized (four-)wheeled ground vehicles; aus.cars even has the
tagline "Petrol heads". A reader there who has not read that newsgroup's
tagline, charter, or FAQ, needs to have a really bad day if they understand
"car" or "cars" in a posting without context meaning anything else than
that. The situation is *very* different in comp.lang.javascript with the
term "javascript" (partially due to its outdated tagline and charter, but
mostly because the term is pure *invention*).

2 You say the word has been misused, but no-one can say 'cars' has never
been misused. And anyway, so what?

I find your argument strewn with gaping defects in logic.

You mean sub-thread, of course.

No, I meant the *whole* *thread*.

Learn the difference.

Learn to read, and to interpret less.

It's not an argument, it's an example.

A bad one at that.

It's not counter, it's the opposite of counter.

Unfortunately, you do not know what you are talking about.
In double meaning.


PointedEars

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Argument at the silent majority.

If you are going to be pedantic, I didn't say that the whole world
disagrees with you (notice the "if").
However, this was not an argument, or a statement of fact, it was
a deliberate over-statement meant as a provocation. I believe English
has the idion "exaggeration promotes understanding" too.

Fact is that I don't remember seeing anyone agree with you yet, and
a lot who disagrees, but still you maintain that you are right and
they are wrong. And this is about the usage of a word, something that
is, in the end, defined by how people actually use it (except in a few
countries).

It is inference, not deduction, that lead you to believe that "node.js"
means that one library that only runs on that one script engine. AISB,
"node.js" can be anything.

Therefore, The OP's postings should have started like "I have tried the
following code using node.js in Google Chrome ...".

As I said, just because you don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that
it isn't meaningfull[1]. You obviosuly still don't know what node.js
is (since it's not a library, and it doesn't run in Google Chrome).

Those who do know what node.js is can also recognize it by name, and
can also recognize the code as using the node.js file-descriptor
library.

/L
[1] If we are slinging logical fallacies, this is argumentum ad
ignorantum. Just becuause you don't understand it doesn't make it
non-understandable.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

If you are going to be pedantic, I didn't say that the whole world
disagrees with you (notice the "if").

The "if" is irrelevant to the classification of the argument as a fallacy.
In either case, the argument is assuming that there would be more people
that disagree with my opinion in this matter (including those that stay
silent) than people agreeing with it.

However, this was not an argument, or a statement of fact, it was
a deliberate over-statement meant as a provocation. I believe English
has the idion "exaggeration promotes understanding" too.

You are evading.

Fact is that I don't remember seeing anyone agree with you yet, and
a lot who disagrees, but still you maintain that you are right and
they are wrong.

Argument ad ignorantiam, see below.

And this is about the usage of a word, something that is, in the end,
defined by how people actually use it (except in a few countries).

That is the core problem and my core criticism with making up a highly
confusable term to apply for a domain (here: this newsgroup, in its FAQ),
and making the claim that it can only be understood within that domain as
defined for that domain.

It is inference, not deduction, that lead you to believe that "node.js"
means that one library that only runs on that one script engine. AISB,
"node.js" can be anything.

Therefore, The OP's postings should have started like "I have tried the
following code using node.js in Google Chrome ...".

As I said, just because you don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that
it isn't meaningfull[1]. You obviosuly still don't know what node.js
is (since it's not a library, and it doesn't run in Google Chrome).

Those who do know what node.js is can also recognize it by name, and
can also recognize the code as using the node.js file-descriptor
library.

/L
[1] If we are slinging logical fallacies, this is argumentum ad
ignorantum.

The proper spelling is "argument ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance,
or appeal to ignorance), and it does not apply to my argumentation. It
does apply to your argument above, though. That fallacy refers to the
situation of assuming that something is true/false because not it has not
been proven false/true. I have never made such an assumption in this
matter. However, above you are assuming (referring to irrelevant facts),
that I must be wrong because you can find nobody who says I am right.

Just becuause you don't understand it doesn't make it non-understandable.

(That is not the nature of an appeal to ignorance, see above.)

I have never said that I would not understand the reasons why some people
use this term. Instead, I have said or at least implied repeatedly that I
do understand the reasons, but that I do not accept those reasons because
the argumentations they are justified with are not consistent.

So what we have here instead is a straw man argument of yours, yet another
fallacy. But thanks for playing.


PointedEars

 

[Jorge]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 at 03:38:00, Thomas PointedEars' Lahn wrote:




Are these your idea of well-reasoned argument ?

Keep trying...