FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.
Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » checking for audio playing ???
Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: server-side vs.client-side [message #183629 is a reply to message #183615] Sun, 03 November 2013 13:16 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Thomas 'PointedEars' is currently offline  Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma:
Senior Member
Richard Damon wrote:

> On 11/2/13, 12:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Michael Vilain wrote:
>>> I've never seen javascript run on anything but a browser.
>>
>> Which does not mean anything. Not only is that an /argumentum ad
>> ignorantiam/, a classic fallacy; but also, contrary to common
>> misconception, there is not even a (single) programming language called
>> “javascript”.
>
> Several Fallacies here:
>
> First, this is not "argumentum ad ignorantiam" because that fallacy is
> the fallacy of assuming something is true because it has not been proven
> false.

It is an /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ *exactly* because of that. The premise
set here implicitly is that “javascript” could only run in a browser, and
the argument made to prove that is that anything else has not been observed
by the person setting the premise; therefore the premise is assumed to be
true. And *that* is a fallacy.

> You might be able to claim a fallicy of lack of evidence does not
> imply evidence of the lack, but the problem with citing that is the
> claim isn't that NO use of "javascipt" is not client-side, but that the
> "norm" for "javascript" is client-side, which means that any possible
> server-side use, if it exist, needs to be uncommon, which IS supported
> (but maybe not proved) by a lack of observation. Refutation of this
> observation could be done by showing a existing usage *of common enough
> usage* to negate the "normally" tag.

Your logic is flawed.

> There is a language called "javascript",

There is not.

> even your beloved ECMAScipt.org site admits this, stating in at least one
> location:
>
> "ECMAScript" is the name under which the language more commonly known as
> "JavaScript" is standardized.

First, note the different spelling. Second, that is still an explanation
for laymen. The only normative work, the ECMAScript Language Specification,
5.1 Edition (and previous Editions), clearly say(s):

| This Ecma Standard is based on several originating technologies, the most
| well known being JavaScript (Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft).

> Which admits to the existence of language with the name of "javascript",

No, it does not. It admits the existence of one programming language named
“JavaScript” (of many others); an existence which was _not_ debated (on the
contrary; if you read the ECMAScript Support Matrix carefully, you can find
confirmation of its existence, past and present, numerous times).

> it just isn't the name of the language that the standard applies to.

Utter nonsense.

> Your instance that "There is no javascript" is a denial of reality.

No, your and other's use of ”javascript” is. From the standard *follows*
that there is no single programming language to implement it, and certainly
no language with that name. The ES Matrix also shows that there have not
been and there is not one programming language, but several ones, with
different names, and have been since shortly after the beginning.

I have been dealing with ECMAScript-based programming languages since about
16 years now; they are the basis of my scientific work in computer science.
Therefore, I strongly suggest you get yourself a lot more informed on the
subject before you start discussing it with me. It would also be preferable
if you discussed it where it is on-topic (comp.lang.javascript), otherwise I
will have to adjust my scorefile.

> The rest of your rant is similarly filled with the flaw that something
> must be wrong because it doesn't match YOUR particular unusual
> definition (or lack there of) even if it matches the commonly use meaning.

It is not merely *my* definition. Perhaps what distinguishes the
professional from the layman the most is that the professional knows that
and understands why definitions cannot be arbitrarily made up if they are to
make sense: they must fit into an existing framework of definitions, they
must be ontological plausible.

To say that a programming language ”is server-side” or “is client-side”
assigns to it an *exclusive* property by predicate. It means that this
programming language could *only* be used either client-side or *only*
server-side.

And nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the very property of
programming languages to be usable in whatever architecture (to be “general-
purpose” in that regard) that makes them so powerful. One must keep in mind
that a programming language is a human-readable abstraction of operations
that tell a machine what to do in order to achieve a human-set goal. It is
only *later* that the human ascribes to a machine or program the property of
being a “client” or a “server” *or* *both*, and he can do that *only* in the
client-server architecture.


PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: There is some confusion on my site I should clear up
Next Topic: accessing nested unknown unserialized objects
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Thu Nov 28 22:44:45 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04176 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.3.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software