Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Jorge on 3 Jan 2010 19:26 On Jan 4, 12:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You truly are a student of Crockford. Yes I am. > For about the millionth time, > that method doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like Safari 2. And who cares ? If Safari 2 is broken it's not your/my problem (as developers). "If a web browser is defective, causing errors in the display or performance of the page, should the page developer struggle to hide the browser's defects, or should the defects be revealed in hope of creating market pressure to force the browser maker to make good? By which approach is humanity better served ?" > I see > it used without proper feature detection and wonder if the authors > realize their scripts will suddenly halt at that spot. Does that seem > a sound degradation strategy to you? Yes it is. People should (learn to) not expect a broken browser (e.g. IEs) to work as if it weren't broken. > And of all the miserable JS libraries out there, how many actually > filter for-in loops in any form? In the first place, why are these miserable libraries in *your* page ? > > Is that > > reason enough to ditch .prototype inheritance altogether ? > > Does it seem to you that I've "ditched" ".prototype inheritance". Sort of. Because that's the sole mechanism to extend built-ins / "augmenting types" (this thread's subject), and you've said: <quote> On Jan 3, 7:27 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear God. That's another step towards the abyss. (...) > > > Is this a good thing in your opinion? > > No. </quote> > (...) > Lucid as always. :) You're welcome. -- Jorge.
From: Jorge on 3 Jan 2010 19:33 On Jan 4, 1:18 am, JR <groups_j...(a)yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > No, it isn't, even in case you know exactly what you're doing. Dear God ! Another step towards the abyss ? -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 19:45 On Jan 3, 7:26 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 12:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You truly are a student of Crockford. > > Yes I am. > > > For about the millionth time, > > that method doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like Safari 2. > > And who cares ? If Safari 2 is broken it's not your/my problem (as > developers). Here we go again. Lacking the hasOwnProperty method does not indicate that the browser is broken. Do the words "progressive enhancement" (or even "graceful degradation") mean _anything_ to you? > > "If a web browser is defective, causing errors in the display or > performance of the page, should the page developer struggle to hide > the browser's defects, or should the defects be revealed in hope of > creating market pressure to force the browser maker to make good? By > which approach is humanity better served ?" That's the stupidest thing you've parroted yet. As mentioned, missing features are not defects. The end-users, who sometimes have no control over what browser they use (and sometimes no idea of what a browser is) are hardly going to appreciate such a crusade. If your script(s) break documents, it indicates that your design is defective. How can you not see that? > > > I see > > it used without proper feature detection and wonder if the authors > > realize their scripts will suddenly halt at that spot. Does that seem > > a sound degradation strategy to you? > > Yes it is. People should (learn to) not expect a broken browser (e.g. > IEs) to work as if it weren't broken. LOL. So you should just screw all IE users and figure they will be grateful for the tough love? Are you insane? > > > And of all the miserable JS libraries out there, how many actually > > filter for-in loops in any form? > > In the first place, why are these miserable libraries in *your* page ? They certainly aren't, but if you distribute a script for other Web developers to use, you can hardly predict what will be mashed up with it. Some go so far as to combine jQuery, Prototype, Mootools, [insert broken Flash script here], etc. in one document. That's the current reality. Get with it or go home. ;) > > > > Is that > > > reason enough to ditch .prototype inheritance altogether ? > > > Does it seem to you that I've "ditched" ".prototype inheritance". > > Sort of. Because that's the sole mechanism to extend built-ins / > "augmenting types" (this thread's subject), and you've said: Think again. Or just try reading before posting obvious falsehoods. > > <quote> > On Jan 3, 7:27 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Dear God. That's another step towards the abyss. (...) > > > > Is this a good thing in your opinion? > > > No. > > </quote> Augmenting built-in types is not the only way to leverage prototypal inheritance. > > > (...) > > Lucid as always. :) > > You're welcome. Beat it, Jorge.
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 19:46 On Jan 3, 7:33 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:18 am, JR <groups_j...(a)yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > > > > No, it isn't, even in case you know exactly what you're doing. > > Dear God ! Another step towards the abyss ? Jorge wanna cracker?
From: JR on 3 Jan 2010 20:06
On Jan 3, 10:33 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:18 am, JR <groups_j...(a)yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > > > > No, it isn't, even in case you know exactly what you're doing. > > Dear God ! Another step towards the abyss ? The guy asked our opinion. Mine was stated: I'm against type augmentation although I know it's possible and can increase expressiveness of JS. That's just an opinion and I can't see how being prudent would be a step towards the abyss? I believe in "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.", and "If something can go wrong, it will." -- JR |