[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/04/10]
> I think we're caught in an endless argument here due to the fact that we're > using "language" differently. You mean the grammar stripped of all libraries > and auxillary widgets. I'm including the libraries and all the auxillary > widgets and in Javascript's case, the web widgets. That's not part of the language in any sense. I have a Javascript interpreter right here that doesn't have any of that. > The particular JavaScript "hosting environment" which I care about, which is > to say a web browser, does have a standard for JavaScript already. They've > already defined hundreds of functions. They already have a way to load and > eval JavaScript files. So take that LAST STEP and add an import() method > to the "hosting environment". That's all I'm saying. And what I'm saying is that's the wrong place to add it, because it requires doing too much at runtime and making it REALLY portable, the way you want, requires all kinds of shenanigans that will bog you down in figuring out where the libraries for *this* server are... and doing server-side includes to load the site-dependent variables that the runtime will need to figure out where to load the stuff. The right way is to define an include *directive* at the *ML level that happens before Javascript ever sees it. If you're adding stuff to the thing anyway, do it right. > I don't give a crap about the core language, This side-thread started out when you sent me to a web page ranting about the language. I've already said, twice now, that the part you're *really* complaining about really does suck... but it's NOT Javascript's fault: Javascript itself is probably the best C-inspired object-oriented language out there, and it's getting a bum rap from the browser environment.There's stuff above here
Generated at 12:00 on 12 Apr 2005 by mariachi 0.52