Direct Source VS Open Source (100% JavaScript single page mobile browser extension +GAS +espruino)

[teo123]

Idk what the point is of that mfwebsite negativity culture thing

The point is that websites should not be flashy. You should not use many colors, yet alone gradients or animations, on a website. My website, which I made back in 2017, is a relatively bad website. Better than what I made before, but still relatively bad.

Btw just saying it's easier on Android doesn't mean it's true.

Have you tried building a UI on Android?

Just calling something flashy isn't an argument

Well, it should be. Too flashy is bad, even in a game, yet alone in something serious.

I never write prototypes

You need to understand that using those new JavaScript "classes" instead of prototypes doesn't solve the underlying problem. "Classes" in JavaScript are just syntactic sugar for prototypes. The class of JavaScript-specific bugs of mistyped method or property names still remains. Using a language other than JavaScript (even TypeScript, which compiles to JavaScript) solves that problem.

your thing about hexadecimal is at best a library issue

No, I think it is inherent in making an app that runs in a browser. Back when I was making a web-app that's supposed to be runnable in Internet Explorer 6, the simplest solution to a similar problem I could think of was to do it server-side. Doing such things is not as bad in modern browsers, but is still pretty bad.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

You need to understand that using those new JavaScript "classes" instead of prototypes doesn't solve the underlying problem. "Classes" in JavaScript are just syntactic sugar for prototypes. The class of JavaScript-specific bugs of mistyped method or property names still remains. Using a language other than JavaScript (even TypeScript, which compiles to JavaScript) solves that problem.

Are you trying to tell me other languages know what function you're trying to call if you misspelled the name? Btw classes in my world aren't objects, they're tags for styles... Objects are what you seem to be referring to when you say class... The way prototypes are used is more akin to returning an object when calling a function... Seems like needless complications and harder to organize than a topmost G object (a g object for meta makes a lot of sense too)...

Btw, you need to understand that when you say you need to understand something but then use the wrong vocabulary and insist there's something missing makes me believe you don't understand

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Another awesome part of direct source is the localHTMLexecutable... Just verified the current version of the public app is working, essentially end users can download the app in that single html file (where functions and ace library all works) and start building independently immediately... Having that as the standard for collaboration seems obvious to me...

Note: at the moment there's some stupid bug with the ace library for the public environment, it will change the theme once and then never again (works perfectly for the same code in my private extension) so for now I have the function on the keyboard turned off...

[teo123]

Are you trying to tell me other languages know what function you're trying to call if you misspelled the name?

No, but they issue a compilation error if you do. In JavaScript, if you misspell the name of a method, even in "strict mode", your program will run up until it runs into that error, if it ever does (you will probably not cover all possible paths in your program in your tests). Other programming languages protect you against that class of bugs by issuing compile-time errors. JavaScript does not do that.

Btw classes in my world aren't objects, they're tags for styles... Objects are what you seem to be referring to when you say class...

OK, if you are going to pretend to be a programmer, have some idea what you are talking about...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... ce/Classes
It seems to me you have zero experience in any programming language other than JavaScript, as you would almost certainly know what a class is if you did. You are entirely unqualified to talk about what is a good programming language. Yet you think you know better than somebody who has actually made a programming language.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Are you trying to tell me other languages know what function you're trying to call if you misspelled the name?

No, but they issue a compilation error if you do. In JavaScript, if you misspell the name of a method, even in "strict mode", your program will run up until it runs into that error, if it ever does (you will probably not cover all possible paths in your program in your tests). Other programming languages protect you against that class of bugs by issuing compile-time errors. JavaScript does not do that.

That's hilarious, not having an extra compile step to your developer experience is a feature not a bug... Simple thing to just check dev tools and there will be errors logged if something isn't defined... Btw, add a simple "debugger;" line and dev tools will pause so you can check values and whatever...

Btw classes in my world aren't objects, they're tags for styles... Objects are what you seem to be referring to when you say class...

OK, if you are going to pretend to be a programmer, have some idea what you are talking about...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... ce/Classes
It seems to me you have zero experience in any programming language other than JavaScript, as you would almost certainly know what a class is if you did. You are entirely unqualified to talk about what is a good programming language. Yet you think you know better than somebody who has actually made a programming language.

And here is the real spirit of the problem, you abusive monsters turn into social engineers who can't win on substance in arguments so you do this autistic bully thing as if it's a competition to be as incompatible with most of the world as possible

If you actually know JavaScript then you are doing this deliberately difficult thing which is stupid and easy to show

https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_doc ... ssname.asp

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Btw, the thing you linked is another one of these recent additions that is totally unnecessary if you learned JS before the cultural revolution... I'm suggesting that stuff makes collaborating harder not easier but it's too late now... For anyone reading this who is skeptical please explain how the new classes concept adds anything whatsoever that can't be done with the old standards with functions that return objects or pass objects to callbacks...

[teo123]

That's hilarious, not having an extra compile step to your developer experience is a feature not a bug...

For beginners in programming, it may very well be a feature. When writing a complex program, it's a bug.

Simple thing to just check dev tools and there will be errors logged if something isn't defined...

I will paraphrase what I wrote earlier... That's assuming your program actually runs along the relevant path during testing. Unless you are a truly excellent tester, you will not find all such bugs. A compiler (such as TypeScript, or that of any sane programming language), on the other hand, will.

Btw, add a simple "debugger;" line and dev tools will pause so you can check values and whatever...

That's useful only once you find a bug and want to have a better idea what's going on. That's not at all useful for finding bugs you are not aware they exist. Something like TypeScript can help you find that you mistyped a method or a property name somewhere.

And here is the real spirit of the problem, you abusive monsters turn into social engineers who can't win on substance in arguments so you do this autistic bully thing as if it's a competition to be as incompatible with most of the world as possible

Sorry, but if you don't know what "class" means in most programming languages, you are not remotely qualified to claim that JavaScript is one of the best programming languages. It means you have no experience in what most programmers consider good programming languages. Not to mention you have probably never written even a simplest compiler to understand the basics of programming language theory.

If you actually know JavaScript then you are doing this deliberately difficult thing which is stupid and easy to show

https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_doc ... ssname.asp

I hope you are not learning JavaScript from w3schools. It teaches a whole bunch of bad practices, such as using "var" instead of "const" and "let".

please explain how the new classes concept adds anything whatsoever

It makes things far more legible, especially to people coming from other programming languages. But other than that, yeah, it's only a syntactic sugar that doesn't replicate the classes from sane programming languages.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

That's hilarious, not having an extra compile step to your developer experience is a feature not a bug...

For beginners in programming, it may very well be a feature. When writing a complex program, it's a bug.

Not true, you're talking as if you write the whole thing all at once and then start debugging instead of what is much more sensible such as debugging in smaller steps, usually function by function as you go

Btw, add a simple "debugger;" line and dev tools will pause so you can check values and whatever...

That's useful only once you find a bug and want to have a better idea what's going on. That's not at all useful for finding bugs you are not aware they exist. Something like TypeScript can help you find that you mistyped a method or a property name somewhere.

Reassigning console.log to something that renders on the app, such as my Um2MAk, makes the first go around easier if that's what you're saying... Even every other line when a bug is still not demystified

And here is the real spirit of the problem, you abusive monsters turn into social engineers who can't win on substance in arguments so you do this autistic bully thing as if it's a competition to be as incompatible with most of the world as possible

Sorry, but if you don't know what "class" means in most programming languages, you are not remotely qualified to claim that JavaScript is one of the best programming languages. It means you have no experience in what most programmers consider good programming languages. Not to mention you have probably never written even a simplest compiler to understand the basics of programming language theory.

It's the best for the world we actually live in (all environments, historical success, V8 heavy lifting, GAS heavy lifting, etc) and the argument was that any marginal improvement isn't worth it in terms of making things as simple as possible for beginners... These newer versions of JavaScript, they're adding features that are redundant and serve nothing but creating different conventions that make things harder to read... Instead of acknowledging this you do this social engineering thing for the other languages... The classes you're referring to are very new in JS, acknowledge this...

If you actually know JavaScript then you are doing this deliberately difficult thing which is stupid and easy to show

https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_doc ... ssname.asp

I hope you are not learning JavaScript from w3schools. It teaches a whole bunch of bad practices, such as using "var" instead of "const" and "let".

"const" and "let" do not add anything whatsoever, if anything my "g" meta object adds more, assign your key values to the g... Stop with this needless extra detail thing... Btw w3schools is often the best at cutting through the bullshit, much better than Mozilla

please explain how the new classes concept adds anything whatsoever

It makes things far more legible, especially to people coming from other programming languages. But other than that, yeah, it's only a syntactic sugar that doesn't replicate the classes from sane programming languages.

How is it more legible? If anything if it's not in the "G" object form then it's not top standard... Most people won't be coming from other languages, they will be beginners... What is actually missing from the concept that you believe classes in other languages provide?

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Imagine for a second you were christian and thought it was a good thing and you knew Jesus was going to re enter the world to claim his 2.5 billion people in 2023, what form should his message be in? Deliberately difficult open source conventions that the general public doesn't understand and in tiny little packages that need zillions of network calls OR something more like my direct source project where everything is organized into the single page hierarchical code folding and with that localHTMLexecutable independence...

[teo123]

Not true, you're talking as if you write the whole thing all at once and then start debugging instead of what is much more sensible such as debugging in smaller steps, usually function by function as you go

Well, test-driven development is probably a good thing, but it does not at all guarantee that your programs are bug-free. I was doing test-driven development when writing the tokenizer and the parser of my AEC-to-WebAssembly compiler in C++ (those tests are run before compilation), and nevertheless there were some bugs left in them. And for at least one of those bugs, using a more sane language than C++ would have helped me avoid that bugs. It would have been even worse if I used JavaScript rather than C++. Who knows how many bugs are left in my PicoBlaze Simulator in JavaScript (where I wasn't even doing test-driven development).

Reassigning console.log to something that renders on the app, such as my Um2MAk, makes the first go around easier if that's what you're saying...

No, that's not what I am saying at all. My point is that, for many bugs in your app, you are not even AWARE that they exist. Your testing simply did not test that PATH (if-else, switch-case...) in your program. A sane language helps you discover those bugs. Plus, a sane language helps you discover some bugs before you even run your program.

It's the best for the world we actually live in (all environments, historical success, V8 heavy lifting, GAS heavy lifting, etc) and the argument was that any marginal improvement isn't worth it in terms of making things as simple as possible for beginners...

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I don't even know what those terms (V8, GAS...) mean. I mean, "V8" is a JIT-compiler for JavaScript used in Chrome, and "GAS" is GNU Assembler, but I guess that you mean something different by those terms, as your sentence makes no sense.

These newer versions of JavaScript, they're adding features that are redundant and serve nothing but creating different conventions that make things harder to read...

There you go, criticizing the features of newer versions of JavaScript and other languages without even trying to understand the problems they are trying to solve. Makes me wonder if that's how we anarchists sound like to statists, as we often seem to be criticizing various government programs without having a good understanding of the problems those government programs are trying to solve. Of course, it's not the same thing, but now I understand the statists better.

The classes you're referring to are very new in JS, acknowledge this...

I was never claiming otherwise. My entire point is that those new JavaScript classes don't solve what's probably the biggest problem of JavaScript prototype inheritance, that are that the program simply keeps going if you mistype a property name.

"const" and "let" do not add anything whatsoever

Yes, they do. "Let" solves the problem of unintentionally-function-scoped variables, and "const" solves the problem of unintentionally modifying a variable that's not supposed to be modified. Once again, you are criticizing programming language features without even understanding the problem they were trying to solve. And the problem that "const" and "let" solve is even more obvious than the problems that JavaScript classes solve.

Btw w3schools is often the best at cutting through the bullshit, much better than Mozilla

It really isn't. There is a reason why new features such as "const" and "let" were added to JavaScript. Why do you think they would be added otherwise? Because people making the standards (primarily from Google and Mozilla) are stupid? Since the tutorials at w3schools do not use them, they are bad tutorials that teach bad practices. So you are not only using a bad language that is JavaScript, you are also following bad practices within it. And are criticizing others for using the new features of JavaScript without even understanding the problems those new features are supposed to solve.

What is actually missing from the concept that you believe classes in other languages provide?

I've explained it multiple times, yet you won't listen. It's the compile-time errors in case of mistyped property name. In sane languages, those are compile-time errors. In JavaScript, these are bugs that are often hard to trace.

everything is organized into the single page

I hope you are not actually putting your entire program in a single file. That makes collaboration almost impossible. Not to mention it's hard to read.