I didn't see a point, just a bunch of facts and a smarmy, self-righteous turn-about comment. If I could downvote it, I would.
The parent comment said "Javascript is a bad language but it's incredibly useful because it's in every browser." and you just agreed with him after writing a bunch of sarcastic drek.
No, jpgvm said that Javascript is "utter crap" that no one would care about if not for the fact that it's implemented in all current browsers. She/he never said anything about it being useful. My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that you can't dismiss one of the key aspects of Javascript's value and then call it "utter crap".
From my perspective, Java has, effectively, structs (well defined groups of data) and a few primitive types, and a class system which is dead simple. It's tiny, comparable to Lua imo.
It's more restrictive, sure, but the dynamic-ness of Javascript is a hindrance when it comes to language spec because the base language functions need to be able to interpret all the different primitive types. There's stacks and stacks of corner cases to remember while Java just says "Nope, wrong type".
I'll give you generics. Statics, method visibility vs global/local/self. Interfaces, abstract classes, inner classes vs metatables. Data-structures apart from array are implemented on top of the language, array vs tables. Iterators are implemented on top of the language vs lua where they are part of the language. Checked exceptions can just be cast to Exception and ignored. Annotations are optional. Threads vs coroutines.
Yes, comparable to Lua. I'd probably not say it's smaller than Lua but I would say it's not greatly larger than it.
I think Java is bigger in terms of the amount of classes/methods that there are to remember. Perhaps I compare them unfairly because I consider everything in the SDK to be a part of Java, whereas the things people might usually bundle in JS (JQuery, etc) I don't consider part of JS because you have to go out and get them separately. I didn't mean bigger in the sense that you need to know more to be able to use it, I meant it in the sense that it is a larger API.
>I didn't mean bigger in the sense that you need to know more to be able to use it
Ah ok, well I can see why we have differing opinions because that's exactly what I mean :)
I mean base language including corner-cases, not any of the libraries (even if they're included in the SDK). I think they'd both be huge if we included libraries, since I'd lump in DOM manipulation and something like JQuery into Javascript if Java gets the SDK libraries.
Just a couple of examples. Arrays and Objects are the same type of structure in JavaScript. Arrays just happen to be indexed by integers and Objects by strings. In Java this is not the case.
Another example, in Java Classes are not objects that can be manipulated, they require a special form (generics) for that. In JavaScript a "class" is just a function that has some default properties attached.
Just a couple of examples. Arrays and Objects are the same type of structure in JavaScript. Arrays just happen to be indexed by integers and Objects by strings.
This description doesn't tell the whole story, leading people to a false conclusion of simplicity.
When it comes to JavaScript arrays, a lot of magic is happening under the covers that doesn't happen with non-array objects. Good JavaScript developers need to know those details, and that counts as complexity.
You're doing people here a disservice by leaving out relevant information.
The associative arrays in JS are simpler than objects in Java but the expressiveness means you need to be aware of all the different types of type coercion and how it all interacts at runtime. I don't think this is that difficult but it's no more difficult to lay out your data before runtime. I think this is a wash that goes to the dynamic vs static debate which we all know can be argued about for days.
You're leaving out prototypes which I find much more complicated than Java Classes.
But the discussion isn't about complexity, the discussion is about "smallness" and prototypes are definitely small. They are just "bags of properties" like all JavaScript objects. They just have the special function of being automatically applied to a new object's "__proto__" property when using new. Compare that to Java, where Classes are not objects themselves, they are blueprints for creating objects. But the distinction there means if you want to reason about Classes you need a special form in generics.
Ehhh, no. That's how dropbox works. If you delete a file it stays in the cloud for a month before it's fully deleted. You can use the web interface to do a proper delete, but the interface makes it clear what you are doing.
Not only that but dropbox keeps a few revisions for you if you happen to overwrite the file.
I've NEVER heard anyone complain about these features before.
>Now unbalance it a bit, if the 6'2" can't hold a conversation he's going to fail. This means that holding a conversation is more important.
This is wrong reasoning. You may just well say: if someone can hold a conversation but is 3'10'' he is going to fail hence height is more important.
Let me improve it for you:
Some minimal level is necessary in all respects: height, holding a conversation, not being awkward, not being disgusting. Once you have that various factors counts at various degrees - height is one of the most important ones (if not the most important one). Status is a contender but guess what: height helps with achieving that too (as it does with acquiring wealth as well).
Also you can work on improving almost anything (holding a conversation, money, athletism) but you can't improve your height. It's huge inherent advantage, nothing comes close.
As a pretty short, straight-seeming bi guy (5'2), I have a unique perspective that might be enlightening about the importance of height to women.
Although I hate projecting people onto the 0-10 spectrum, I'll do it here for illustrative purposes.
With women, I have a great deal of difficulty attracting anyone: it's less that I match with numerical ones and twos than not matching with anyone at all. Not no one--and those I do succeed with are typically even middling on the spectrum--but it's a massive crapshoot.
With men, I can go out to a bar on any night of the week and bring home someone in the top half and usually an eight or nine. Sure, that's meaningless shit, but converting those into relationships isn't difficult at all (or at least no more difficult than anyone in the gay community has converting hookups to relationships).
The difference is incredibly striking, and anyone who says height isn't a factor in women dating is so wrong that it's incomprehensible that they've ever bothered to even talk to a woman about how she feels about height in dating partners.
That's pretty common as a phenomenon: I wouldn't say it's a cliff so much as a very steep grade. My current girlfriend is an inch taller than me, and taller than that in heels (and I love her in them!). But she's the tallest person I've ever dated.
It also shows the shortcomings (no pun intended...) of the 0-10 rating model: there's neither generic Man nor generic Woman. Your rating to women you're more than two or three inches taller than (could be 0, could be 10) is almost entirely independent of your rating to women you're two or three inches shorter than (0).
As a 6'2" man, to me it is evident that I have a clear advantage over my friends, and it is evident for them too. Of course, I'm not a bum with dirty fingernails who can only talk about WoW. Think of the extra height as an extra effort, social skill set, whatever, that the person inherently has. It sucks, I agree.
Height absolutely has advantages but at 5'9 with friends that are both taller and shorter I can say that without a doubt, effort is an under-appreciated equalizer for men.
Its not 100% with 100% of women, but by putting in effort, i.e. learning how to talk to women, dressing well, and being friendly and social with other people... any guy can vastly improve their dating situation.
I must have some pretty screwed perspective, but I've never thought of 188cm (6'2") as being tall, at least not exceptionally. I'm 193cm (6'4") and I find myself just moderately above average, with many men (talking about men exclusively, of course) quite taller than me. From my experience, I'd expect the average to be around 180cm (6").
Hum, are you in the Netherlands? 188cm is definitely tall in pretty much everywhere. 193cm, you're probably in the top 1% in everywhere except two or three countries.
Well, I took a look after posting that comment, and this is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height_around_... -- sort by the first column descending, skip all the N/A items (I'm not sure why would they miss all that data for men when it's perfectly available for women) and you'll find my origin at the top of the actual results. I guess that might explain a lot.
Try this mental test the next time you see a very short, slim, but quite good looking guy. Now imagine him in a 6'3" athletic build. It drastically changes the appeal this guy has. This was told to me by a woman friend, and it happens everytime I think about it.
If you're successful, smart, a good person (or much more important: not a jerk), you can find a good person and have a relationship, a meaningful, lasting one. But if you base your romantic success in how easily you get dates/get laid compared to taller, broad shouldered athletic guys, then you'll probably end up frustrated.
People who are short look as height as "the key". It's really not and it truly doesn't matter if you don't have other features to compliment height. If you're overweight and 6'2, it doesn't matter.
I don't agree that it's "truly doesn't matter". Yeah you won't be a rockstar popular guy if you are fat or have bad social anxiety but your position and prospects would be even worse if you were short as well.
>Exactly. The most successful lothario in my university class was a short guy who went to the gym 5 days a week, had exceptional grooming and was extremely confident/comfortable around women. Height is a very small factor in these things.
It really puts me on tilt reading things like that.
Yes, height is not the only factor, yes it's still possible to achieve great things without it, yes you can be attractive/popular without it. Yet it's still very important factor which puts you at great advantage in both dating and career game. Just because there are some shorter guys who "outperformed" taller guys doesn't mean it disproves the height=advantage theorem.
It "the" factor as in: the most important out of other factors. One you will often get automatically disqualified for. One for which you will be automatically taken less seriously in dating, in other social situations in workplace in politics. One you can do absolutely nothing about.
Other things may make significant difference but most things are possible to work on. With height you are out of luck and have to listen to condescending "short guys should put more effort to deserve the same" talk your whole life or my favorite: "maybe you should lower your ambitions" (often disguised and said in more pc way) - why ? Because you were born that way.
Now, being the most important still doesn't mean it's 80% or even 50% if you try to measure those things as there many other factors (and sucking on many fronts will reduce the biggest of inherent advantages) but its huge.
You said it's not the most important factor but then when challenged you offered logical fallacy as an argument which makes probability that you never really thought about it or experienced it quite high.
It's difficult to assess from within the bubble so what about reading posts of people who experienced it here, at other places on the Internet or looking at the studies which were done ?
Exactly. The most successful lothario in my university class was a short guy who went to the gym 5 days a week, had exceptional grooming and was extremely confident/comfortable around women. Height is a very small factor in these things.
Not to mention fringe benefits of being short. Relatively, EVERYTHING IS BIGGER. This idea alone makes me want to try being smaller for a day. Fitting on beds, fitting in airplanes, all food portions are bigger, cars are more spacious.
Assuming you are talking about the relative prestige of lawyers in Australia? In the US, they are still generally considered high status by the culture, although those of us who have been in the world are much more aware of the fact that just going to law school often reduces your status by objective measures like buying power and employment options (I am a law school dropout). But, most JD earners consider themselves higher status than they would be without their JD.
Yes on prestige. Last I checked lawyers make an excellent living here too. University fees are less crippling because you aren't forced to make repayments unless you are earning over a certain amount.
