On Mar 26, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Ric Johnson wrote: > On 3/26/2008, "Brendan Eich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is reductionism, therefore between silly and wrong, > > Can you explain the above fragment?
The whole of a language is more than the sum of its parts. The lambda calculus is enough for computation but no one wants to use only it. Danny Hillis built a computer from tinkertoys once... > >> * you can't make read-only properties in ES3; > > I think I can! How? > but is the intention sugar or hacker proof? Hacker. >> *you can't make don't-delete properties of plain old objects (only >> vars in closures); > > Again, I can make it pretty darn hard to remove privledged fields > without > killing the tree, How? >> * you can't make objects that cannot be extended; > > This may be true. But I think the crazy guy that invented > livescript did > this to allow the power of prototype and redefine the Object/ Function > constructors actually had a good idea: JS is not a CLASSical language. That does not solve problems where integrity matters more than it does for the obvious use-cases I had in mind in favoring mutability. >> * you can't yield from a function to its caller, saving state >> automatically in local variables, and send a value back to the >> suspended activation of that function. > > I actually have a hack that used recursion, a global hash, timers, and > closures that effectively did YIELD (and it worked most of the time > too!) I don't think you read what I wrote: save local variables, resume the same function activation. Sure, you can implement state machines with other techniques, which are ugly and hard to use by comparison :-P. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
