Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [jslint] Re: return statement flagged as syntax error

Expand Messages
  • Tom Worster
    the quotes you mention get to the core of the fundamental difference of opinion between JSLint s supporters and critics. the general considerations reflected
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 5 12:22 PM
      the quotes you mention get to the core of the fundamental difference of
      opinion between JSLint's supporters and critics.

      the general considerations reflected in the quotes are so important that
      they sweep all my personal style preferences into irrelevance. now that i
      really accept this (for many years i did not) it just makes no sense for
      me to take issue with any given rule in JSLint. to truly prioritize
      quality and then argue for accommodation of ones own style preferences is

      btw: i don't believe i said anything about where in the video douglas'
      remark about JSHint arises. yes, it is all the way at the end.

      another that i particularly like:

      "The contract we have with the machine is that if the program is in any
      aspect, at any time, and in any way, imperfect with respect to any of its
      inputs, the computer has license to do anything it wants. And it can often
      do the worst possible thing, and at a time of its own choosing, which
      could be the worst possible time. And when that occurs the fault is not
      the computer's, it is the programmer's. So our programs have to be

      On 10/5/12 2:24 PM, "Rob Richardson" <erobrich@...> wrote:

      >Thanks for the link. That was an incredibly cool video. Thoughts I
      >particularly enjoyed:
      >- "Optimize for perfection, not for cleverness"
      >- "Programs need to communicate clearly with people"
      >- "I'm not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying there isn't a case where it
      >isn't confusing"
      >- "Confusion must be avoided because confusion creates the condition which
      >creates bugs"
      >- "Clearly communicate intent"
      >- "Forms that hide defects should be considered defects"
      >By the way, you noted it was his opening quote that referenced JSHint, but
      >it actually was the final comment in the video. (42:00) You might want
      >fix that bug. :D
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
      >Behalf Of Tom Worster
      >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:39 PM
      >To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: return statement flagged as syntax error
      >"There are always going to be stupid people who don't want to get it
      >For them it's really good that JSHint is available." --
      >as i've said before, JSLint isn't for everyone.
      >i accept JSLint's preferences over my own because i doubt my own skills
      >can't be sure who will work on my code in future. it clearly makes no
      >for me to argue with JSLint. there's nothing for me to gain from that.
      >on the other hand, a programmer of superlative skill and confidence, who
      >knows that her code will be maintained only by completely reliable
      >programmers, and who has strong feelings about style that differ from
      >of JSLint -- that programmer has good reason to set their own standards
      >write their own tools.
      >so, it appears i don't entirely agree with douglas' opening quote. but i
      >think he was not thinking of these preternaturally talented programmers
      >of another category of people, those that think JSLint is wrong but still
      >want some version of it to give their code its OK.
      >as for polite/rude... i live in boston where traditionally the locals are
      >terse, direct and forthright. it doesn't bother me.
      >On 10/4/12 2:38 PM, "Rob Richardson" <erobrich@...
      ><mailto:erobrich%40robrich.org> > wrote:
      >>douglascrockford <douglas@...
      >><mailto:douglas%40crockford.com> <mailto:douglas%40crockford.com> >
      >>> douglascrockford <douglas@...> wrote on Thu, 4 Oct 2012 at 02:00:02
      >>> -0000 in <k4iqj2+rjit@...>:
      >>> > Fix your code.
      >>> It would be so easy to explain why this construct is disfavored.
      >>> It would be so easy to give a link to a web page.
      >>> It would be so easy to be polite.
      >>> Why is it necessary to be rude?
      >>>In his original post he stipulated that the code was bad. So we are
      >>explanation here. He refused my advice. I repeated my advice. He can
      >>take it or leave it. So can you.
      >>http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=802 (17:16 starts a
      >>wonderful discussion, but the whole show is great)
      >>http://www.hanselminutes.com/332/coneryminutes-1 (12:30 starts a
      >>descent sound-byte, but the whole conversation is excellent)
      >>1. I'm sorry you feel the need to be so negative and terse when people
      >>are asking for your advice.
      >>2. You've definitely reached a great point of knowledge and experience
      >>in your career, and others may not have that vision.
      >>3. You release some really great tools, and I'm so glad you're helping
      >>to enlighten, educate, and build the JavaScript community.
      >>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.