[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Web versions

From: Colby Russell
Subject: Re: Web versions
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:58:01 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0

Furthermore, how are we supposed to square Richard's call to action to
replace non-free JS with free JS, if JS is to be understood to be
inherently bad (as in the picture painted in this discussion)?


In fact, The JavaScript Trap has multiple similar calls to action.

* * * * *

On 3/15/21 2:42 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> it can just as well be binary.

... at which point, you're making an argument for *my* side of this, and
not yours.

> And as long as people are unwilling to read it, I'll happily point it out.

Alfred: can you knock it off already?  We've read it!  If there's anyone
demonstrating an unwillingness to read, it is you.

In 2019, in an email, Richard asked me whether I'd like to help GNU and
the free software movement.  In fact, I've been contributing to free and
open source software for my entire adult life, have a nuanced
understanding of the various movements and the underlying philosophies,
and had already undertaken to work on some of the problems inherent to
the practices of mainstream JS development by then.  (I feel partially
responsible, since I put a lot of effort into making sure high quality
documentation about the JavaScript language existed in the early days of  So I am one such person equipped to respond to
these calls to action.

But it's beyond me why I or anyone else *should* respond, if this is the
sort of intransigence that one is going to encounter.  What's the
payoff supposed to be?  To invest substantial effort into solving the
problem, only to be frustrated by folks who abandon the position that
should be undergirding the initial call and who refuse to be coherent?

Colby Russell

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]