2

I'm aware that this question requires, in addition to some cultural context about Abbott and Costello, good expertise on quality JavaScript or OO coding. But I'm confident that there are plenty of people here with both knowledges.

From JSLint Help on this:

Having this in the language makes it harder to talk about the language. It is like pair programming with Abbott and Costello.


What should I know about Abbott and Costello to understand what Douglas Crockford means? (Or have a hint.)

8
  • I would disagree that having this makes it harder to talk about the language.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 21 '18 at 11:42
  • 1
    @HotLicks Examining the video provided by bogle, Crockford seems to mean that having a keyword in your programming language which is a common word in your natural language makes harder to talk about the programming language. He could have explained himself better.
    – cdlvcdlv
    Jun 21 '18 at 11:49
  • The Q has everything to do with Abbott and Costello, and the function of "this" in programming. If you know both, you know the answer. Else ask on Software Engineering
    – Kris
    Jun 21 '18 at 12:39
  • What? I don't know.
    – Hot Licks
    Jun 21 '18 at 12:40
  • I am Spaniard so I didn't know about "Who's on first?" routine more than you people out of Spain probably know Miguel Gila's. Crockford's "explanation" left me baffled and so my question. Knowing that routine to understand what even means DC is one question (probably suitable for English SE) and discussing the convenience of DC's ban in JSLint recommendation is another (definitely more suitable for SO or Software Engineering). Maybe I ask it, because DC states in the very video that bogle links "this is the key to prototypal inheritance" but in JSLint is categorical: "Avoid using this" So?
    – cdlvcdlv
    Jun 21 '18 at 15:12
3

It can only be a reference to the 'Who's on first?' routine.

He just means to point out the awkwardness of discussing something named 'this'. For example, one programmer might ask another 'what this are you talking about, this this or that this?'.

3
  • 1
    Mmm, maybe but if the only problem is that two programmers cannot talk clearly one to the other, I don't see clear why this is bad programming. It's just the name piss him off? There was a reason to invent this. A this by another name would be avoidable as this (this) or would Crockford be content if the name was another?
    – cdlvcdlv
    Jun 21 '18 at 10:28
  • 1
    I believe it is simply the name. I'm not sure if he has ever suggested a different name for the parameter. He elaborates on the topic in the following talk. youtu.be/ya4UHuXNygM?t=699
    – user304119
    Jun 21 '18 at 11:06
  • "He elaborates on the topic . . ." Do you mean on this topic? :) Jun 21 '18 at 19:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.