[jrsala]

There is a lot of wrong in this article: inability to articulate what polymorphism is, misunderstanding of prototypes, bad JS practices (`var`, `.__proto__`), falsehoods on programming languages including JS itself, confusion around ECS, unfinished examples... I suspect the author is in the early stages of their learning journey and Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.

[plexicle]

You might be right but your last sentence is the reason why people are apprehensive about sharing their work and writing more articles. There's no need for it.

[jrsala]

There is no judgment in what I said. DK is a fact of life and we will all experience it at some point. I know I have, and quite badly.

I wish when I was younger someone had told me "look, you don't really know what you're talking about, here's how things really work". If no one tells you, how long does it take for you to realize and how much time do you waste thinking you know what you don't know? Again, the author is at the start of their learning journey. I'm not saying they're a bad person or a hopeless case.

And finally, people should not be apprehensive about sharing their work in general, but I think they should be when writing articles that purport to teach others.

[graderjs]

Okay, "You don't know what you're talking about." :) There is a clear judgement on your part.

For me my own recent DK-moment was I'm learning a foreign language and in a shop asked for a simple item with a simple phrase, sure I had it right. They had no idea what I meant and I got angry because I thought you were just trolling me. Relating situation to a friend who let me know my accent was just wrong, so hard to understand. What got me is sometimes my accent good, sometimes it's not, day by day. But I was so sure, because my level is quite low. Haha

For you, with your judgement, you don't know whether it's true or not they are in DK, additionally you yourself may be mistaken in your JS criticism, it could be you that has DK, and they are correct.

Also, "You don't know what you're talking about.", OK, so, " this is how it works": generally when you criticize someone as doing X, and then backpaddle on pushback to say you do the same, you should recount a specific instance where you did X "and quite badly" because that shows you're genuine, and willing to be vulnerable, as you have tried to make the other person vulnerable by invoking the criticism you, by that omission, seem reluctant to invoke upon yourself. :) ;p xx

For me, a recent one where I didn't do that was a friend was telling me about their job offer progress, and salary negotiation. They wanted Y, but didn't say, and company was offering less. I told them how they should just ask for what they want, and try to get it. Friend pushed back, and got upset. Fast forward to same friend, next job offer, this time I shared a story how I hadn't pushed for my preferred salary in a previous job, then told how I felt not enjoying the job and feeling I was not getting fair reward each work day. Much better conversational outcome, friend more receptive to advice this time. Friend ended up with high salary they were happy with.

Better yet lead with the story of your mistake, tho that's hard to do. Either way, sharing your own makes you seem more credible in trying to bring someone up not put them down, shows you speak from experience, and engages someone emotionally into feeling for you rather than just being defensive :) ;p xx

[jrsala]

I disagree with some of what you say, but I think your last point is correct.

>you yourself may be mistaken in your JS criticism

It should be easy to verify I'm not. `__proto__` is indeed bad practice [0] and I'm pretty sure criticism of `var` vs. `let` and `const` is a Google search away. Same idea for the other problems I listed, but the details are besides the point.

>There is a clear judgement on your part

I'm not sure what makes you think there is. It was important to first point out that this contribution to HN is a rather poor one on technical grounds. People might have taken away bad practices from the article. Then, I felt it would also be interesting to share my suspicion about the author's state of mind. This is after all what commentators of all kinds do, from movie critics to sportscasters.

>sharing your own [...] shows you speak from experience, and engages someone emotionally into feeling for you rather than just being defensive

This rings true and I could be a better communicator if I applied this advice. So here goes: this [1] is my most upvoted SO answer that I wrote years ago. The code I suggest is rather bad, as I'm sure any experienced C++ dev would agree, and I find the style pompous. It makes me cringe a little, but that answer also demonstrates an interest in technical topics and an eagerness to share, just like the author's article.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4788965/when-would-anyon...

[graderjs]

Cool, yeah I wasn't saying that your JS was good or bad, just the possibility of it being so. I'm with you, I think you're good at JS, but then I don't really know. And neither, in truth, do you. We're both judging.

I think you need to remain open to the possibility, not just of DK but of we all have something to learn. I think I'm pretty good at JS and have popular projects and good test scores, but I also fail some JS questions (the other day in the FB PE screen I couldn't work out that the regex /^sep\n$/g wouldn't actually match. I was confused and thought the newline was needed as well as the $. Haha. Just one example.) I try to give my self a rating of 7. Keeping open to the possibility of being wrong, is more important than being right or wrong. I can't really explain it right now (maybe one reason is it's super late here, another might be I just don't know how to explain it right now) but I feel that humility is important, more so the more you know and the better your skill. Somehow I feel more humility make your skill better, especially the more skill you have.

Thanks for your humble and vulnerable example, I appreciate it! It gives you great credibility. If you were more open to the possibility of things you don't know, and not so absolutist about your JS knowledge, I would have felt you were even more credible.

Finally, you have a blindspot. You can't see that you judgement of the JS skill was actually a judgement. Because you're so sure you're right about it. Ties in with what I said before about humble and open to wrong. Of course it's a judgement, it's a "you think" it's like this, not a "it is like this". There are other perspectives that are valid. I think if you see that, then it will make wielding this big sword you have an easier and more pleasant experience! :P ;) xx

[dehrmann]

> I wish when I was younger someone had told me "look, you don't really know what you're talking about, here's how things really work".

To which all youth ever just roll their eyes.

[astrobe_]

I'll dare to ask : but is there a need for articles made with half-baked knowledge?

[jollybean]

The problem is JS - it's been a fuzzy bit of confusion since inception, it was never remotely intended to do what it's doing, and nary a tiny fraction of JS developers could authoritatively explain the differences between prototype __proto__ etc. - I keep a chart handy as a reminder and much like C++ stick to a set of rules to avoid unknowns.

There's a reasonable chance that with a much more succinct and clean '20/20 hindsight' the articles like this would be either clear, or frankly unnecessary.