[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/04/10]
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:05:00PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote: > > Yes, include() would have to be part of the standard. The whole point. > > That means you have to define the hosted environment in FAR more detail than > is appropriate for an embedded language, AND in more detail than is justified > at this point. There's no guarantee that a Javascript implementation even > has a file system available to it through ANY path. > > The include you're talking about, that belongs in the hosting environment, > not the language. I'll agree that the hosting environment sucks, but I've > already made that point, but it's NOT something that belongs in the language. 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. Let's move away from that for a moment because I'm sick of this argument. 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. I don't give a crap about the core language, I'm not an embedded systems programmer, don't know a damn thing about it and can't comment on it. All I know is high level languages. PS What is the term for "the Javascript language plus all the crap needed to use it in a web page?" I thought that was referred to as the DOM. DHMTL maybe?There's stuff above here
Generated at 12:00 on 12 Apr 2005 by mariachi 0.52