The Gameboy color hardware can be simulated on a desktop computer in a browser, in javascript. Does that make desktop computers more primitive than Gameboys?
It's a difference of power and size, not level of complexity. In theory you could simulate a desktop computer with a browser and javascript on a gameboy color given enough processing power and memory. (without increasing instruction set complexity / requiring more abstraction levels than on a desktop / sneakily inserting more complexity in some other way)
@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the context of my original question has to do with the level of difficulty in doing one or the other. Now that we've got this far, what is more difficult- simulating classes with prototypes, or simulating prototypes with classes? Which requires more code, and more complexity? And from that, what do we conclude about primitiveness?
I'd still stand by the opinion that the browser in GBA is the same level of complexity as GBA in browser. They're interpreters of some code essentially (one of GBA roms, the other of html/js). There is of course a different human complexity of "how hard would it be to implement"... but if we're adding JS engine to the mix, the browser may be actually harder.
With classes / prototypes (sorry for wibbly wobbly explanation, my CS is not good enough to use the proper terms, which probably exist out there), you can pretend there's a "behaves like" relationship. To simulate a prototype using a class you have to build the freely accessible dictionary and initialisation/cloning semantics level inside of the class.
To simulate classes using a prototype... that depends on your definition of a class. Dynamic dispatch is already there, encapsulation too, subtypes just need a field specifying the name and cloning the right prototype, inheritance is on by default. Self-referencing is usually in there too.
So in my opinion classes can be substituted by prototypes in a large number of cases. Classes however need another layer on top to act like prototypes. So prototypes look like more primitive than classes and classes look like a special-cased version of prototypes. Then again, it's late here, so maybe I missed something obvious...
I htink the word you are looking for isn't actually "primative", but expressiveness.
A prototypical inheritance model can express a larger range of constructs than a class based inheritance model can, and this is normally called expressiveness. Its actually difficult to say which one is more "primative" (by your definition of primative), because they are actually both on a similar layer.
Anything I can do with a string, I could also do with an array. However, it would take extra work to make an array behave like a string, in the form of helper functions, etc.
If I really wanted to prove a point, I could make a string behave like an array. But that would take even more work because an array is a very flexible tool used for a variety of low level purposes.
Therefor, according to your argument, a string is a more primitive data type because it takes more work to make a string act like an array than it does to make an array act like a string. This goes in direct contradiction to the actual definition of a programming primitive.
Back to the original poster's quote, "JSX offers a solid class system much like the Java programming language, freeing the developers from working with the too-primitive prototype-based inheritance system provided by JavaScript."
He is quite clearly addressing a specific case here, which is programmers who want to use Java-like classes when developing in Javascript. A lot of extra work is required if you want to make a Javascript prototype behave like a Java class, with inheritance, etc. So in this context, it is obvious that Javascript prototypes are "too primitive" for the task at hand.
Similar to the way that strings are, in fact, arrays with lots of extra functions for frequently repeated, string-related tasks, JSX classes are JS prototypes with a lot of the oft-repeated boilerplate code done for you. I'm not sure how to make it more clear how the chain of "primitiveness" flows in this case.
You're kind of stretching the metaphor a bit far here. In the javascript language interpreters, prototypes are implemented with classes. In JSX classes are implemented with prototypes. In C, strings are implemented as arrays. In shell scripting, arrays are implemented with strings. All we get out of this is that whether a programming construct is low level or high level is relative to how it was implemented, and is not an intrinsic quality of the construct itself. This doesn't make any sense to me.
Something being "a primitive" is entirely based on implementation details. Not implementation details of how the language interpreters/compilers are constructed, but how you as a programmer implement things in the language in question.
A associative array might be considered a language primitive in PHP, but not in C. It is contextually dependent on the language being discussed.
Without speaking about a specific language, you cannot define something as a primitive or not in the strictly programming sense. Once you start talking about comparing two types of constructs in an abstract sense, the word primitive can only be interpreted using the English common usage, and then you are talking about an entirely different concept.
Re-reading this... It's clear what is "a primitive" in javascript. but what does "Too-Primitive" mean? The sense of the word "primitive" as in language primitive is a set, not a quantity. Something is either a primitive or it is not. there's no such thing as "too primitive"
You're right, when talking about a primitive type in the programming sense, something either is primitive or it isn't.
I took this phrase to mean that the prototype construct is "one step down on the composite type hierarchy" from what is needed to emulate as a Java-style class.
Rather, its a good building block but the necessary boilerplate code makes it "too basic" for that purpose. Therefor this developer has created a type further up the composite type hierarchy (or further away from the primitives) to accomplish his goal.
I don't think he's trying to suggest any deficiency in the expressiveness or capability of the prototype construct (he's obviously quite familiar with it to create this language). This is simply a tool for people who aren't familiar with (or don't make use of) that aspect of Javascript to be productive by utilising a more brief, or possibly more familiar (ie Java) syntax.
@olalonde that's a bit of a cop out, of course I've read that article. That is why I'm baffled by the assertion that prototypes are more primitive than classes. It doesn't add up with the definitions of what amounts to being high level and low level. If you have something more specific to say I suggest you say it, but it's pretty lame to just wave your hands at a wikipedia article and tell me to figure out something that you've obviously got wrong, from my point of view.
Prototypes are a primitive data type of Javascript (a basic building block). Classes are not offered natively and have to be constructed with lower level building blocks such as prototypes. This is why classes are said to be higher level than prototypes in Javascript. Does that help?
Do you think that is the sense of the word "Primitive" intended by the author of JSX? In that sense of the word, what does "More" primitive or "Too primitive" mean? I would have thought something was either a primitive or it wasn't- not a sliding scale.
I find it hilarious that olalonde appears to be turning your condescending use of socratic irony back on you by treating you as the "ignorant student" that you pretend to be, and then not only do you not pick up on it, you actually get offended! Brilliant.
There was no question that he was asking me to answer. He just told me that I was confused and pointed me at an article. He didn't say what he thought I was confused about. There was no obvious conclusion he was attempting to lead me to. There was no new evidence he was presenting. It's probably an mistake to read offense into text. There is no way for you to know whether I was offended or not. In this case I was not offended, I was pointing out that his reply was devoid of content, and lacking in effort. Likewise if you want to read condescension into my text, that's up to you, but has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Your arguments all tend to make sense when using the English common usage of the word primitive, because I believe that JS prototypes are possibly more advanced than Java classes.
However, speaking solely about the language Javascript, I think it's also fairly clear that in Javascript a prototype is a language primitive that you would use to build a Java-like class construct. Therefore in this context, according to the programming term primitive, prototypes are clearly "more primitive".
It doesn't matter what the Javascript interpreters are doing behind the scenes, because all we care about is Javascript as a language, and what building blocks are available there.
Your use of the word primitive does not seem to logically match the definition of the word provided in the Wikipedia article (admittedly not the best reference for programming concepts), which is why I believe the link was entirely warranted.
And just as a side note, it is entirely possible to be condescending without consciously intending to be.
As a side note, when a human communicates something there is an intent and an interpretation. If the two don't match up, do you defer to the intent, or the interpretation as the correct meaning?
@viraptor (i can't reply directly to messages sometimes for some reason. is it a karma thing?) , So, what you are saying is that if you want to simulate A in B, but B needs an abstraction layer to simulate A, while A can simulate B more directly and naturally, that makes A more primative? So then does that mean that C is more Primitive than Assembler?
Actually it's a rule of hacks, isn't it? If it can exist... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZrD622qf0