Terminology? Object structure definition, not a class?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: CreateTextFile
Next: Precise printing from Javascript?
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 16:36 On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> 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. In other words, you should have heeded my previous warning(s) instead of conflating them to ad hominems. HTH
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 16:45 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> 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 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. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 18:29 On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> 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. :) > 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. > > > 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? > 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!
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 19:45 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> 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. :) > >> 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. >>> 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 will say that I don't feel you've addressed my argument, that "instance" is a proper description of an "instance" of a "prototype". >> 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? 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. >> 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. See above. I didn't receive any answers from you for my questions. Only from another poster, who answered the one question I had. >> 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. :) 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. >> 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! You never repeated yourself and you never answered the question. You've only taken apart sentences. I wish you well as well. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 20:14
On Jul 23, 7:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 23, 4:45 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 23, 4:12 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> 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. :) > > >> 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. Considering that this is your first thread, you are off to a pretty sticky start. :) > > >>> 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. ;) 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? > > >> 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? > > 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. > > >> 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. > > 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. > > >> 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. :) > > 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 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! > > 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. :) |