ARM chips have an instruction with JavaScript in the name

The operation it accelerates is very simple, its just not really required much outside of javascript. It is already identical to an existing instruction, just with slightly different overflow behavior that javascript relies on.

Do you ever type "prototype"? Do you ever type "prototype" in any language but JavaScript? How it differs from other languages accessing [[Prototype]] / class directly, not through constructor?

I've thought that's caused by prototype inheritance, but no io language [1] prototype based yet easy to understand. The only difference — it does not hide [[Prototype]]. I've redefined Object and Function to show how it works. You would get same result in "dead" files. REPL to make it easy to reproduce.

Imagine it is another language

    object.private = function () { return 'hello' }
    Object.shared  = function () { return 'world' }
    Object.constructor.static = function () { return '!' }

vs

    object.private = function() { return 'hello' }
    Object.prototype.shared = function () { return 'world' }
    Object.static = function () { return '!' }

Can you see the difference? Or straight from io tutorial

    Contact = (class {
      constructor(name, address, city) {
          this.name = name
          this.address = address
          this.city = city
        }
    }).prototype
    holmes = new Contact.constructor("Holmes", "221B Baker St", "London")
    Contact.fullAddress = function() {
      return [this.name, this.address, this.city].join('\n')
    }
    holmes.fullAddress()

No "prototype" (except from class but it can be redefined).

> ... and that's not even what instanceof means.

Thank you, it should check [[Prototype]] not constructor

    // Object instanceof Object
    Object.constructor.__proto__ === Function
    // Object instanceof Object
    Object.constructor.__proto__.__proto__ === Object
    // Function instanceof Function
    Function.constructor.__proto__ === Function
    // Function instanceof Object
    Function.constructor.__proto__.__proto__ === Object

[1] https://iolanguage.org/

> Not every day or even once in an average week, unless you're doing something wrong.

Do you have to understand it or not? There is a ton of information on the web (viewed 191k times) [1], [2], etc. Acting like it is intuitive is disingenuous.

No, that's you who don't understand. I've shown particular code that is error prone in JS but is ok in other languages. That is the issue. It is not solved. Every novice gets it. It is simple to solve. Instead you claim "you should not need this", tell it 191k viewers. Yes, you know what's going on, still you claim "you don't need this".

    class Foo
    end
    foo = Foo.new
    foo.class == Foo // metaprogramming! *You shouldn't even be futzing with these things in _any_ file*

Sure I know about method definition in class. Extend it (same class). It is useful technique.

And please don't post twice same if you can't read response.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9959727/proto-vs-prototy...

[2] https://javascript.info/class-inheritance

I think it goes beyond prescriptivism/descriptivism.

Descriptivism refers generally to describing how a community uses language, so the most common usages end up being the primary definitions. Once documented, these tend to become prescriptive.

In that context, a single author who uses a word in an unusual way would likely not have any impact on the descriptive or prescriptive definitions of that word, unless of course their usage becomes common.

Humpty was arguing for the benefits of using words in unusual ways, which potentially violates both prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Impressionistic use of words is one example of this, where the words used might convey a certain feeling, perhaps via their connotations, even though their literal definitions may not be exactly appropriate. This kind of usage is generally found in literature where language is being used as an artistic tool rather than a prosaic tool of communication.

tl;dr: my HN comments is a art

What do YOU think "objective" means?

None of the properties you're talking about are objective. Objective doesn't mean Crockford wrote a book about it or "lots of people agree with me".

Objective means factual. You're putting the word "objective" in front of your own and others opinions to arrogate the credibility of objectivity onto statements that are not based in observation of material reality.

More people holding an opinion doesn't make it a fact. "Terribleness" or "justifiableness" are not matters of fact, they are both matters of opinion.

Do you understand? You keep repeating your opinion and then using the word "objective" to claim that your opinion is fact. You think I am disagreeing with your opinion, rather I am disagreeing with you stating your opinion is a fact. No matter how many people agree with you it will never be a fact, it will always be an opinion because "terribleness" is not a matter of fact! "Terribleness" is the result of a value judgement.

There are no such things as "objective conclusions", objectivity is not a manner of reasoning. You're looking for something more like "observations", "measurements", hard facts.. none of which apply to "terribleness" because it can't be materially observed--only judged.

"Objectively" isn't an intensifier unless used in the form "Objectively [something that isn't objective]." Why would actual facts need to be intensified? What kind of insane argument would anyone have where facts and opinions are compared directly?

I know it sounds stronger to say your opinions are facts but it is okay to have opinions. Just remember that the difference between opinions and facts is a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree. You can argue an opinion, you can attempt to persuade me to your way of thinking if you show your reasoning.