> I think you new my intent I have no interest in arguing with the willfully ignorant. I'm no more a telepath than you are, and if you are going to respond to your hallucinations about what is in my head instead of responding to what I wrote then I will allow you to wallow in your misinformation.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Jon Perryman <jperr...@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 12:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Who writes these things? On Thursday, September 26, 2019, 01:15:42 PM PDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> You are referring to XML parse tree. > Not even close. What are you smoking? After looking at Perl's HTML5 DOM which came out this year, I stand corrected. Apparently, people are willing to put a lot of effort and time into an obscure seldom used browser. It's DOM object appears to be compatible with JS. Sorry but I've ignored these obscure browser implementations >> Even Nodejs parses uses the XML parser instead of the HTML parser. > There is no "the XML parser" or "the HTML parser"; I actually meant AN instead of THE but I think you new my intent and you just wanted to add to your list. >> JavaScript OO was specifically designed around DOM. > What language features do you believe have anything to do with DOM? If you've used javascript, you will have noticed it doesn't have "CLASS". The functionality exists but not in a way OO programmers would expect. There are others but they are much harder to explain. >> This has caused a huge debate about JavaScript being OO. > No, what has cause a huge debate is that > JS doesn't satisfy the standard definitions of OO language. Either you don't fully understand JS or OO. Which OO criteria do you think JS is missing? Remember, you may not like the JS implementation but it does exist. >> JavaScript is part of HTML. > Repeating the claim doesn't make I true. Ok Mr Trump. I gave you justification for my claim. Apparently I need to take your word on faith. >> JavaScript could not exist outside of HTML until 2009 (nodejs). > I can get you a good price on a calendar for 1995, which, last I heard, is > earlier than 2009. Am I supposed to take everything you say as gospel? Does that calendar include the date and product? Does that product still exist? >> I never said that CSS is OO. However it does have scripting capabilities > How do you code, e.g., a sort, in CSS? Are you really this clueless about programming languages. You should google the definition of program. Or maybe it's scripting language you should google. Where does it say the code must provide specific capabilities (e.g. sort)? >> Only Netscape supported javascript for web sites. >> The rest of the world >> only accepted JavaScript as part of HTML. > I can get you a good price on a 1996 calendar. Apparently repeating absolutely useless information will make us believe your point. >> You missed my point which is the definition of "macro" which you said has >> not changed since 1950. > Whoosh! Which part of "first hit" don't you understand. > THE FIRST HIT MATCHED THE DEFINITION FROM THE 1950S. You really should catch up with the times. What meaning do you think "first hit" has in regards to Googles search engine AI? It did not turn up in my results as far as I was willing to look. To make matters worse, you say things like search google #def #if. #def is clearly misspelled and googles AI often corrects this to real words instead of special phrases (e.g. #define). >> What main stream languages prior to C (1970) used the word "macro" in the >> same way as C? > PL/I. Pretty much every mainframe assembler. > OTOH, I've never seen anybody but you refer to COPY or INCLUDE s macro > facilities. > When did "macro" go from "special purpose command language" to being "copy"? I used copy and include as an analogy. Clearly you haven't used C macro's much otherwise you would have understood the analogy, said #define instead of #def and known that #if is not valid in a C macro. PL1 and assembler clearly have a proper macro language. You said prior to 1970 there were languages with a macro language similar to the C implementation. What is that language. Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
