-Lost wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<snip>
>>OK, I see now. This self-taught crash course is causing me
to amass ridiculous assumptions.
Not nearly as quickly as taking VK seriously will.
OK, a couple things here.
1) VK has not replied to this post. (So... see #4.)
2) I am truly uninterested in your personal campaign against VK.
It is not personal. Anyone else who posted such a mass of utter nonsense
on such a regular basis, and over such an extended period, would be
subject to a similar response. In the past efforts have been made to
correct VK's misconceptions about javascript (and most other web
technologies), but mostly it takes an extreme effort to beat even the
most basic concepts into him and even then he tends not understand.
Having demonstrated his (seemingly wilful) inability to learn anything
about javascript the extent to which anyone is willing to attempt to
teach him has diminished, and instead he is mostly just criticised for
wasting everyone's time.
3) Please do not take the above as an assault on you. I
value your feedback and have thus far found it indespensible.
It is a warning, you may take it as you like.
4) If there is a response made by VK to one of my original
inquiries that is somehow flawed or generally in err, *please*
let me know.
There is. The general rule is that if VK writes something the odds are
(based on past experience) better than 50-50 that it is false, fictional
(made up off the top of his head), misconceived, or the worst technique
available in any situation. However, very often what he is writing is so
detached from the reality of javascript, and so incoherent in itself,
that no specific correction can be made.
Remember that after what he claims is the best part of 10 years 'using'
javascript VK is incapable of assembling even 30 liens of code to carry
out a relatively simple task:-
<URL:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...20fbcd4b4ab7f8 >
-, so inept at testing that he cannot see for himself that the code he
writes does not work, and even when spoon-fed the functional code he
still creates an clumsy implementation. These are not symptoms that would
be expected from a javascript expert, though they might be manifest in a
mentally ill individual who suffered the delusion of being a javascript
expert.
I have just begun reading articles and sadly a somewhat antiquated book
on JavaScript. If
VK is feeding me erroneous information you would be
doing me a great favor by making me aware of it.
Consider yourself informed, but do examine VK's posting record in the
archives. If you go back a year or two you may find many people trying to
beet some sort of understanding into him, and so read many simplified
explanations of important details of javascript presented in that effort.
>>I definitely should have tested it further, perhaps then I would
have caught/understood that.
In general the 'correct' way of doing anything depends considerably
on the context in which you want to do it. You will get better
answers
to your questions (subject to your not disregarding posting
conventions)
if you explain what, why and where in your questions.
In my current state of JavaScript-ness, I am woefully unaware of
methods
of providing myself different contexts by which to test whatever.
I have no idea what you intend that to mean.
The what, why, and where has also, thus far, been pointless.
You will not be able to write much software without knowing what you are
trying to do, or why you are trying to do it.
The reason being is because I get a simple idea and do random little 10
to 30 line scripts just to see if I actually understand
whatever it is I have read.
That is a what and why (though it still lacks a where). Now in the
contest of testing for undefined values you must then be trying to see if
you actually understand something specific, but you did not mention what
it was that you thought you understood.
Richard.
