Comment by DonHopkins
5 years ago
The reason you're going around in circles is because you keep insisting on repeating something that's not true.
Again, at the risk of repeating the truth: "Repeating it over and over again does not make it true."
There's no need to "drill down" or infinitely recurse on yourself: simply execute a "break;" and stop repeating things that aren't true, and your infinite "while" loop will terminate, and your function will finally "return;".
Has JavaScript's fuzzy concept of "truthyness" has affected your brain, and you're just as confused about the basic concept of "equality" as Brendan Eich is about gay marriage and human rights?
https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/
Figuring out whether (JavaScript == JSX) || (JavaScript != JSX) isn't as tricky as deciding why (NaN == NaN) || (NaN != NaN). And using three equal signs instead of two isn't going to change the result.
(I'm sorry this has to be repeated over and over again, but it IS objectively true that you're repeating things that aren't true over and over again, and that's not making them any more true.)
So please repeat after me: JSX is not JavaScript. That's the truth, it's always going to be true no matter how many times you repeat the opposite, and it shouldn't have to be repeated.
Please see the reply I posted to @JimDabell, I didn't answer you due to your rudeness, but my reply applies to your points as well, your wall of text was the same as his two sentences.
edit: I'll expand for you...
I'm sorry you wanted to get sucked into "is an experimental feature JS feature JS or not". That was not my intent. The entire intent was you can use JS by using the JSX extension. Instead of #for you use JS iterator functions. You can use non experimental JS features in JSX instead of conditionals or loop systems you roll yourself. Your only argument is "oh it's not included yet" okay, no shit.
Anytime someone says JSX is JS they don't mean it's currently in the standard spec, no one is arguing that, they're arguing you can use JS language features instead of a custom template system.
Anytime someone says JSX is JS, what they said means what those words mean, and what those words mean is wrong. JSX is not JS.
If you want to say something that is different than "JSX is JS" then use different words than "JSX is JS". Nobody is misunderstanding you. You're simply wrong, and insisting on saying something that's not true.
It's possible in the English Language to put together a different sentence using different words that is not incorrect, so do that, instead of saying "JSX is JS", if you want the words you say to not be wrong.
But you don't get to unilaterally redefine the meaning of the word "is", or the JavaScript language definition, and then act rude and angry and frustrated when people disagree with you and get tired of your infinite looping and mindless repetition of things that simply aren't true.
So try this: next time you feel the urge to repeat the false statement "JSX is JS", and find yourself looping infinitely picking arguments with knowledgeable people who disagree with you, instead say something completely different, that actually means what you're trying to say and is true, like "You can use JS language features instead of a custom template system", which means something totally different than "JSX is JS".
Then you won't be saying something that is wrong, and you won't feel so sad that people are misunderstanding you, and you won't get sucked into an infinite loop and keep going around in circles, because you're not simply saying what you mean, and instead inexplicably saying something that's not true instead.