Terminology? Object structure definition, not a class?

[Alan Gutierrez]

David Mark wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
On 2010-07-22 10:50 PM, David Mark wrote:
On 2010-07-22 09:36 PM, David Mark wrote:
On 2010-07-22 06:34 PM, David Mark wrote:
This is mainly for Dave, but anyone feel free to jump in.
[...]
Instances. Dave, you have said that calling JS variables instances
creates confusion.
I mentioned that calling constructed objects instances was likely to
be confusing
Calling a constructed object an instance is unlikely to be confusing.
The concept of instances exists in many other languages. "Instance" is
the correct term for what was described.
Not as I see it (or the confusion it creates). Did you read my post
at all?
What was written was corrected as it was misleading.
In your own fantasy world I presume. In reality, your response
demonstrated a stunning lack of comprehension.
I see you've snipped what was written and replied flippantly. It
reflects typical behavior of David Mark.
The specification is (still) correct.
The term "instance" is (still) a standard programming term can be -- and
is -- used to describe the concept as it exists ECMAScript. You may not
like those facts (and apparently that is the case) but that does not put
me "in a fantasy world" for stating them.
I believe David Mark was trying to argue that instance is a bad term to
describe an object instance because you can reassign the reference used
to reach the constructor when the object was created and the instanceof
operator will fail when the constructor is sought through that
reference.
That was but one example of the dubious nature of the instanceof
operator. The concept that it is unfortunately named and misleading
is not new (certainly not around here).
The only real point is that the term "instance" has connotations that
can easily confuse those used to classical OO. Same for "class" and
"singleton". As for the latter, why would you need to pigeonhole
objects as singles if there are no multiples? In fact, the use of
that term implies that there must be some other type of object (which
is the case in many other OO languages).
Is your argument that "instance" is confusing because it is overloaded
with meaning?
Partly that and partly due to the inherently confusing nature of the -
instanceof - operator. I think I've made my points quite clear.
That is true of so many words in computing.
We aren't discussing other words.

We were discussing instance. You argue that it is overloaded.

I'm not sure
where you're going with "class" and "singleton". I'm not arguing those
meanings, so I'll leave you to do that on your own.
I think those points were clear enough as well. If everything is
black, then there is no need to consider the concept of color is
there? In fact, referring to such things as "black" implies that
there must be other things that are "white".

The concept of "class" my indeed not directly apply to JavaScript, but
the concept of a "singleton" is design pattern and is as applicable to
JavaScript as it is to any language.

No classes means that there is no need to refer to singletons. Quite
the contrary, such references can and will lead to confusion among
those indoctrinated in classical OOP.

Sure there is. A single instance of an object that encapsulates its
state and can possibly be a pluggable implementation. There's a lot of
value there still, even if you don't have a class, you still the concept
of type and a singleton is still a single instance of the type.

What you don't seem to realize is that that operator doesn't work as
"advertised". More confusion.

Where is the advertisement? I illustrated clearly my understanding of
how instanceof works. You have not questioned that. You only keep saying
that I seem confused based on words in my sentences, not on the
reasoning of my logic.

I understand now how it works and how it would be useful. It is useful
to determine if an instance of an object is an instanceof a particular
prototype. So long as you keep a reference to the the prototype around
and in the place where it is expected to be, it could be quite useful
indeed.

Is there some way in which it fails to work?

See my examples (which you recently quoted) with regard to that
operator's behavior.

To what end? I made a point here that you won't address.

JavaScript has user defined "type". I know it. You know it. We all know it.

It's of no interest at all at this point (except perhaps to those who
arrived late). And no, my "pedagogy" is not deeply flawed; you are
simply a newcomer who thinks he knows more than he does. There's a
new one every week.

I find it very interesting. I wish there was someone here who would
simply affirm what I've observed. That would help me learn.

I've given you considerable insight; but you seem not to have grasped
some (or all) of it.

Hmm... You've made some point about "instance" being a misnomer. I
disagree with you. You can't seem to accept that.

No, I'm really getting tired of your rapid-fire "sincerity" and
accompanying questions. You've either got it at this point or you
don't.

I'm be very considerate. I'm responding to you when you respond to me.
You're fortunate to have my attentions, just as I am fortunate to have
yours.

That wasn't an ad hominem either (it was an admonition). You seem to
have a problem with using terms in a slightly-off manner. *That* was
an ad hominem (though relevant to the current discussion).

It is not appropriate to admonish me. It can be taken as an attempt to
establish yourself as a superior, when there can be no such relationship
on USENET. It can be taken as an attempt to discredit my point by
discrediting me by saying I'm not experienced enough to make my point.
That would the definition of ad hominem. Arguing the man instead of
arguing the point.

The relevant dialog related to the OP's question is long over.

No its not. You've not addressed my reasoning on the applicability of
the word "instance".

I hope it doesn't surprise you that I have no interest in getting into
an "inquiry vs. argument" debate with you.

No, it doesn't. But, the key point here is that I'm making a valid
inquiry, and not directly to you. I expressed my understanding of
"instanceof" and sought validation, but have received none. I'd expect
someone in the group to address that directly.

No.

Well, then. I am a humble man. You are not. I am not obligated to share
your with you your certainty in yourself.

No. And I can't help but ask, what communities would those be? If
you are referring to projects like jQuery and Dojo, then much to learn
you have.

Hmm... I'm not sure you understand the question. Do you feel you have
anything to learn from the software communities in which *you* participate?

Currently, I'm participating in com.lang.javascript because there is
much for me to learn from the other members, or at least there could be,
if this is a forum that is functioning as a forum of peers. If it is a
place for a pedagog to hold court, then it is of no value to me. It
might be of value to other people, but I don't learn that way.

 

[John G Harris]

I believe David Mark was trying to argue that instance is a bad term to
describe an object instance because you can reassign the reference used
to reach the constructor when the object was created and the instanceof
operator will fail when the constructor is sought through that
reference. Therefore, instanceof, is to David Mark a misnomer, when in
reality, the object is still an instanceof the constructor that created
it, but that constructor is no longer reachable from the reference used
to reach it at the time of construction.

<snip>

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the instanceof operator. In
v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

Thus instanceof tests an object's relationship with a prototype chain.
This is reasonable since it's the prototype chain that affects the
object's future behaviour, not the constructor object.

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.

John

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

<snip>

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the instanceof operator. In
v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

Thus instanceof tests an object's relationship with a prototype chain.
This is reasonable since it's the prototype chain that affects the
object's future behaviour, not the constructor object.

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

 

[David Mark]

John G Harris wrote:
[...]

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.

HTH

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

John G Harris wrote:
[...]

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.

Thank you. Learn something new every day.>

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

That would have saved time? I don't think so. This was lightening fast.
I asked a question and got an answer that clarified my understanding.

This is how I learn. I ask pointed questions seeking pointed answers.

In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.

HTH

No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again. This comment adds nothing to the conversation. Your descriptions
were opaque. You were hammering home some point about what is or is not
confusing to other people, not speaking directly to inquiries.

This is truly helpful, to have direct questions answered. What you've
done, so far, has not been very helpful to me at all. You still have not
address the point I made in the other branch of the thread, that
"instance" is a valid description of an "instance" of a "prototype" in
JavaScript.

 

[David Mark]

John G Harris wrote:

[...]

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.
Thank you. Learn something new every day.>

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

That would have saved time? I don't think so. This was lightening fast.

I thought it was pretty heavy myself. Granted you diluted the hell
out of it by the end.

I asked a question and got an answer that clarified my understanding.

You already had the answers under your nose.

This is how I learn. I ask pointed questions seeking pointed answers.

And you are constantly getting stuck.

No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again.

You like talking about me, don't you?

This comment adds nothing to the conversation. Your descriptions
were opaque.

Not to everyone it seems. Doesn't that indicate that you had a
problem?

You were hammering home some point about what is or is not
confusing to other people, not speaking directly to inquiries.

Oddly enough, that was the point of the discussion until you tried to
turn it into a private tutoring session.

This is truly helpful, to have direct questions answered. What you've
done, so far, has not been very helpful to me at all.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a help desk.

You still have not
address the point I made in the other branch of the thread, that
"instance" is a valid description of an "instance" of a "prototype" in
JavaScript.

I'm through repeating myself for your admitted lack of benefit. Best
of luck!

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

John G Harris wrote:
[...]
If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.
Thank you. Learn something new every day.>
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

That would have saved time? I don't think so. This was lightening fast.

I thought it was pretty heavy myself. Granted you diluted the hell
out of it by the end.

I asked a question and got an answer that clarified my understanding.

You already had the answers under your nose.

This is how I learn. I ask pointed questions seeking pointed answers.

And you are constantly getting stuck.

How would you know? I've only asked one question so far, and I've
received one answer. There is no history of me being stuck on this
newsgroup.

You like talking about me, don't you?

I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person. I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument,
that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype".

Not to everyone it seems. Doesn't that indicate that you had a
problem?

I've not accepted a role in our relationship that would put the burden
of understanding on me. If I consider you a peer, then I consider
misunderstandings to be shared responsibilities. Considering you a peer
is part of the casual grace of the Internet, that we enter into
conversations as equals. Asking a question of someone on through the
Internet is not an admission of educational inferiority.

Oddly enough, that was the point of the discussion until you tried to
turn it into a private tutoring session.

See above. I didn't receive any answers from you for my questions. Only
from another poster, who answered the one question I had.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a help desk.

I've not asked a help desk question. I've asked a question to expand my
understanding of JavaScript. To use the newsgroup as a help desk would
mean that I was asking a (likely) time sensitive question to an
implementation. I'm simply another USENET participant engaging in a
threaded conversation about the topic at hand. Asking questions is part
of communication.

I'm through repeating myself for your admitted lack of benefit. Best
of luck!

You never repeated yourself and you never answered the question. You've
only taken apart sentences.

I wish you well as well.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[...]
If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.
Thank you. Learn something new every day.>
You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them..
That would have saved time? I don't think so. This was lightening fast..

I thought it was pretty heavy myself.  Granted you diluted the hell
out of it by the end.  

You already had the answers under your nose.

And you are constantly getting stuck.

How would you know? I've only asked one question so far, and I've
received one answer. There is no history of me being stuck on this
newsgroup.

Considering that this is your first thread, you are off to a pretty
sticky start.

I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person.

I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self-
righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group.

And if you aren't a person then the joke really is on me, isn't
it?

I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument,
that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype"..

We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances
as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how
confusing that can be?

I've not accepted a role in our relationship that would put the burden
of understanding on me.

Ah, I see where you have gone off the path. We have no relationship.

If I consider you a peer, then I consider
misunderstandings to be shared responsibilities.

Neither are you my peer.

Considering you a peer
is part of the casual grace of the Internet, that we enter into
conversations as equals.

But on this subject, that's clearly a false assumption. I'm telling
you that a new one of you blows in here every other week. It's always
the same story.

Asking a question of someone on through the
Internet is not an admission of educational inferiority.

Who said it was? But I put it to you that you are relatively ignorant
about JS and browser scripting. You'd do well to listen and learn for
a while and stop trying to lecture me on Usenet protocol.

See above. I didn't receive any answers from you for my questions. Only
from another poster, who answered the one question I had.

You are seeing what you want to see. My question is why you want to
see such things (perhaps you've formed some sort of knee-jerk opinion
of me?) In other words, I answered your question at least a half-
dozen times before the same answer (with a slightly different
explanation) was posted. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to
teach you anything. Again, this is a discussion group and not a help
desk.

I've not asked a help desk question. I've asked a question to expand my
understanding of JavaScript.

And what is your definition of a "help desk" question? Rhetorical,
don't answer (please).

To use the newsgroup as a help desk would
mean that I was asking a (likely) time sensitive question to an
implementation.

Dammit. You definitely seemed pressed for time on the question. Your
replies were relentless that it be spelled out for you immediately, to
the point where you started to complain about the bad service.

I'm simply another USENET participant engaging in a
threaded conversation about the topic at hand.

No, as I see it, you didn't seem interested in the topic at hand. You
veered off onto some quasi-related topic that, in turn, did not
interest me.

Asking questions is part
of communication.

Is it?

You never repeated yourself and you never answered the question.

If that's your take, you didn't read my numerous posts to this thread
(several of which were replies to your posts). Your homework is to re-
read the entire thread from start to finish and to post an essay on
where you went wrong.

You've
only taken apart sentences.

I don't recall doing that. (?)

I wish you well as well.

Take care.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

David Mark wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[...]
In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.
HTH
No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again.
You like talking about me, don't you?

I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person.

I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self-
righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group.

Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me.
You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense.

We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances
as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how
confusing that can be?

Apparently, it is very confusing for you...

In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

Apparently, you have not known the answer to the question all this time
and you're now only able to answer it incorrectly.

Neither are you my peer.

Hard to imagine that I'm not your peer, in the sense that we probably
both have knowledge about software development. I'm here to exchange
knowledge, and to learn, and to discuss. I can't really see people on
USENET as anything but peers and fellow programmers. Again, it is a
causal grace that dominates the Internet, that we approach each other as
equals. Asking a question of a newsgroup does not put a person in a
position of being admonished. I am not inclined to accept admonishments
from strangers.

But on this subject, that's clearly a false assumption. I'm telling
you that a new one of you blows in here every other week. It's always
the same story.

If the turnover of this newsgroup is that bad, you should really look at
what's gone off the tracks with the community. You'd hope that people
would come and stay. If they are coming and probably, like me, standing
their ground when they are condescended to, they are going to leave. It
is a shame if that is the case.

Truly, if it is the same story that someone engages with you until you
insult them, then don't you feel that this pattern begs some
self-observation?

Who said it was? But I put it to you that you are relatively ignorant
about JS and browser scripting. You'd do well to listen and learn for
a while and stop trying to lecture me on Usenet protocol.

I don't believe that listening to you would teach me very much, I'm
afraid. There is way to much noise in the signal. Maybe it's just me,
but I'm not really responding to well to your rather Socratic method of
conveying information. I much prefer direct answers to sincere
questions. The sort given by the other poster. I'm able to pocket that
information and move on.

You are seeing what you want to see. My question is why you want to
see such things (perhaps you've formed some sort of knee-jerk opinion
of me?) In other words, I answered your question at least a half-
dozen times before the same answer (with a slightly different
explanation) was posted. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to
teach you anything. Again, this is a discussion group and not a help
desk.

You're not teaching me anything. You're not able to answer simple
questions. Your whole line of reasoning has been that you've already
answer the question and that I'm supposed to comb over your writings and
extract it, but that is not how I want to spend my time.

I don't imagine that you're obliged to me in any way at all.

Dammit. You definitely seemed pressed for time on the question. Your
replies were relentless that it be spelled out for you immediately, to
the point where you started to complain about the bad service.

Never did I complain about bad service. I am not working on or in
JavaScript today. This is all a doodle.

No, as I see it, you didn't seem interested in the topic at hand. You
veered off onto some quasi-related topic that, in turn, did not
interest me.

I've only been trying to pin down the meaning of "instance" and
"instanceof". At this point I'm only responding to your
mis-characterizations.

If that's your take, you didn't read my numerous posts to this thread
(several of which were replies to your posts). Your homework is to re-
read the entire thread from start to finish and to post an essay on
where you went wrong.

That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
David Mark wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[...]
In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.
HTH
No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again.
You like talking about me, don't you?
I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person.

I'd agree that you are kind of a creep.  Be fair, a repetitive, self-
righteous blow-hard.  That won't serve you well in this group.  

Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me.
You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense.

We've been over that ad nauseam.  For one, nobody refers to instances
as "of a prototype".  The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object.  See how
confusing that can be?

Apparently, it is very confusing for you...

So confusing that I wrote an in-depth analysis of the issue about
fifty posts back.

In v instanceof f  (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

That was demonstrated by my earlier post.

Apparently, you have not known the answer to the question all this time
and you're now only able to answer it incorrectly.

That would seem impossible given the timeline, wouldn't it? I asked
you to re-read the thread from the start.

Hard to imagine that I'm not your peer, in the sense that we probably
both have knowledge about software development. I'm here to exchange
knowledge, and to learn, and to discuss. I can't really see people on
USENET as anything but peers and fellow programmers.

You are speaking in a general sense. I was not as this is a very
specific discussion (and group).

Again, it is a
causal grace that dominates the Internet, that we approach each other as
equals.

I didn't approach you. I just had to deal with dozens of rapid-fire
queries, each roughly the same. It's irritating.

Asking a question of a newsgroup does not put a person in a
position of being admonished. I am not inclined to accept admonishments
from strangers.

Stick around.

If the turnover of this newsgroup is that bad, you should really look at
what's gone off the tracks with the community.

There's no turnover. Most of the people I refer to end up sticking
around forever (for better or worse).

You'd hope that people
would come and stay.

They do.

If they are coming and probably, like me, standing
their ground when they are condescended to, they are going to leave.

You are imagining things again.

It
is a shame if that is the case.

Good thing it is not (well, depending on how you look at it).

Truly, if it is the same story that someone engages with you until you
insult them, then don't you feel that this pattern begs some
self-observation?

You are telling a different story than I am. That seems to be a
recurring problem in this thread.

I don't believe that listening to you would teach me very much, I'm
afraid.

That's what they all say; and yet, they keep asking me questions. Go
figure.

There is way to much noise in the signal.

That too.

Maybe it's just me,
but I'm not really responding to well to your rather Socratic method of
conveying information.

And I'm not really responding well to your neurotic method of asking
questions.

I much prefer direct answers to sincere
questions. The sort given by the other poster.

The other poster? Nobody has added anything new to this discussion in
about a hundred posts.

I'm able to pocket that
information and move on.

Please do.

You're not teaching me anything. You're not able to answer simple
questions. Your whole line of reasoning has been that you've already
answer the question and that I'm supposed to comb over your writings and
extract it, but that is not how I want to spend my time.

Again, this is not a help desk. And why should I repeat what has
already been posted? Because you are too lazy to go back and read
carefully?

I don't imagine that you're obliged to me in any way at all.

Your words don't match your (many) actions.

Never did I complain about bad service. I am not working on or in
JavaScript today. This is all a doodle.

Yes, you got quite irritable when I refused to repeat myself
endlessly.

I've only been trying to pin down the meaning of "instance" and
"instanceof". At this point I'm only responding to your
mis-characterizations.

LOL. I made no mis-characterizations. I explained the differences to
a tee at the very start of the thread. That's why I told you to go
back and re-read for comprehension.

That's my take. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Agreed!

 

[Garrett Smith]

[snip informative explanation]

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

Example:

function Person(){}
Person.prototype = {};
var a = new Person;
var isBefore = a instanceof Person
Person.prototype = {};
[isBefore, a instanceof Person]

Result:
[true, false]

(please don't feed the trolls).

 

[David Mark]

[snip informative explanation]

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

Example:

   function Person(){}
   Person.prototype = {};
   var a = new Person;

Use the call operator. Thanks.

   var isBefore = a instanceof Person
   Person.prototype = {};
   [isBefore, a instanceof Person]

Result:
   [true, false]

That's a virtually identical reworking of an example I had posted at
the very beginning of the thread. Somebody else posts it and you call
it "informative"? ISTM that you have popped in here more than a few
times to call my explanation(s) wrong, even going so far as to post a
ridiculous half-example that somewhat seemed (to beginners) to
demonstrate an opposite point (i.e. the instanceof operator is not
confusing). So make up your mind.

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

David Mark wrote:
David Mark wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[...]
In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.
HTH
No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again.
You like talking about me, don't you?
I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person.
I'd agree that you are kind of a creep. Be fair, a repetitive, self-
righteous blow-hard. That won't serve you well in this group.

Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me.
You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense.

I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument,
that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype".
We've been over that ad nauseam. For one, nobody refers to instances
as "of a prototype". The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how
confusing that can be?

In v instanceof f (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

That was demonstrated by my earlier post.

You don't see how your definition differs from the correct definition?

Agreed!

I'm content with this outcome. I'm heartened by the exchange with two
other posters. I'm quite certain that we're not going to resolve
anything at this point. I will note that you owe me an apology for
calling me a creep and a blow-hard. I never resorted to calling you
names. I don't know you well enough to accept insults even accompanied
by emoticons, so you will have to address that if should we ever find
that we have to work together. Otherwise, to ingratiate myself to other
readers of this newsgroup, I will allow you to have the last word,
allowing anything more that you have to say, admonishments, homework
assignments, or insults to go un-addressed.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
David Mark wrote:
David Mark wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[...]
In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead
of conflating them to ad hominems.
HTH
No. It doesn't. I believe you are simply trying to assert yourself
again.
You like talking about me, don't you?
I'm kind of creeping into characterizing your half of this conversation,
but otherwise, I'd say that you've been very quick to characterize me as
a person.
I'd agree that you are kind of a creep.  Be fair, a repetitive, self-
righteous blow-hard.  That won't serve you well in this group.  
Adding a smiley doesn't change the fact that you have just insulted me..
You have called me a creep. That is offensive and I take offense.
I will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument,
that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype".
We've been over that ad nauseam.  For one, nobody refers to instances
as "of a prototype".  The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object.  See how
confusing that can be?
In v instanceof f  (v must be an object and f a function object)
it tests whether the head of the prototype chain *currently* in
f.prototype is in the prototype chain of v.

That was demonstrated by my earlier post.

You don't see how your definition differs from the correct definition?

Agreed!

I'm content with this outcome. I'm heartened by the exchange with two
other posters.

You still don't get it. The *other* posters restated part of what I
had stated in my original answer (way back when). You know, the bit
you were so pleased with about the binding between the constructor's
prototype property and the constructed object (and the subsequent
examples demonstrating the fleeting nature of this binding and how the
instanceof operator could be fooled). Yeah, those. In other words,
you wasted a ton of time (including some of mine) for no reason, other
than perhaps laziness. Apology accepted.

 

[Kenneth Tilton]

John G Harris wrote:
[...]

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

Sounds like you are a terrible communicator if all that is necessary. A
good communicator meets their audience half-way.

kt

 

[David Mark]

John G Harris wrote:

[...]

If the object's constructor has had its prototype property changed and
the object is tested with a no longer suitable function object then
that's the programmer's problem.
Thank you. Learn something new every day.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by carefully reading my
examples and thinking about what I was trying to illustrate with them.

Sounds like you are a terrible communicator if all that is necessary. A
good communicator meets their audience half-way.

In other words, you didn't read the preceding posts either.

 

[Garrett Smith]

John G Harris wrote:

[snip informative explanation]

Thank you. Learn something new every day.

Example:

function Person(){}
Person.prototype = {};
var a = new Person;

Use the call operator. Thanks.

There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript.

 

[David Mark]

On 2010-07-23 01:12 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
John G Harris wrote:
[snip informative explanation]
Thank you. Learn something new every day.
Example:
    function Person(){}
    Person.prototype = {};
    var a = new Person;

Use the call operator.  Thanks.

There isn't a call operator in ECMAScript.

Oh brother. And, in your world, what do you call it?

 

[John G Harris]

The languages own instanceof operator makes a
comparison between a constructor and a constructed object. See how
confusing that can be?

<snip>

Now you're in danger of causing confusion. Whether the function was
designed to be a constructor or not is irrelevant. Whether the function
was the one that actually constructed the object is irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is the value of the prototype property of
the function.

John

 

[David Mark]

  <snip>

Now you're in danger of causing confusion. Whether the function was
designed to be a constructor or not is irrelevant.

That was certainly not my intent. But I am sure you know what I
meant.

Whether the function
was the one that actually constructed the object is irrelevant.

Yes, which is highly confusing with regard to the instanceof
operator. That's been my point from the start.

The only thing that matters is the value of the prototype property of
the function.

Yes, as explained and demonstrated in my original answer.