So don't use javascript backed data; use your ajax calls to fetch new pieces of UI, not data. Keep your data on the server, send chunks of UI to the client rather than json.
You don't have to refresh the page to rerender a part of it while still keeping the UI and all logic on the server. You don't need client side js view frameworks to make server side ajax apps.
I wasn't arguing it was an OO language, merely that it was OO code. OO used to be done in C in exactly the same basic way, passing the struct that is the object as the first arg to all the member functions; Python does this explicitly as well.
Well, now we have to get semantic; if by encapsulation you mean you keeping your data private and only exposing behavior publicly, then you're wrong. If by encapsulation you mean all behavior that uses an objects data is in the object and no outside code relies on that objects data even if it is public, then you're agreeing with me.
You clearly didn't play out my thought experiment above or you wouldn't be making the statement you just made.
I'd argue that, it's not remotely the most important part nor is sub-typing. Encapsulation encourages better OO, but you can take a well encapsulated OO program, and remove all encapsulation by making all the data public, and that program is still a well structured OO program. OO is about the way objects talk to each other to accomplish work, the message, the API between objects; it's not about the many little things like encapsulation that encourage better messaging. There are dozens of practices that encourage better OO, but you can write good OO without them if you know what good OO is and don't need those training wheels.
Correct, and the big reason for that is it means you don't have to be PCI compliant since the card never touches your server, only stripes. That's why Stripe blew up, Paypal had no such offering for allowing you to use your own checkout form but not have to pass the card through your server.
Because there is no parenthesis problem; there's a newb problem. The people who complain about parenthesis haven't used a Lisp long enough, that's all. Parens are a feature, not a problem, and everyone eventually figures that out and stops complaining or they move on to a language more suited to them.
Ah, yes, I'm hoping this is true as well hence my interest in what you said about learning to dream while awake. If you don't have any specific recommendations I'll continue researching on my own.
Not sure I understand what you're implying, I'm not blind, and only recently realized other people actually see pictures in their mind while awake. But dreaming while awake would be awesome if achievable.
Apparently aphantasia doesn't appear to affect dreams (from research I've read), when sleeping I do have visual dreams, but awake, nothing but black even with eyes closed no matter how hard I try to imagine a picture.
Your complaint isn't about framework, but about other people's frameworks. A framework is always the best approach, when it's your framework and those 5% never happen because you simply modify the framework to be able to do it.
> I gave you what I consider to be logically sound evidence that meditation can't lead to Enlightenment
You did no such thing. You just told me why you think that, based on nonsense woowoo about karma, rebirth, and spirits; that is not logic, and it is certainly not rational. You've given me zero reason to believe anything you say.
> but you won't find the evidence of this statement from me since I don't meditate
Then you shouldn't be speaking with authority on the matter; you clearly know nothing about it.
> the goals of meditation (no suffering, darkness/closing your eyes, stopping the flow of your mind/one-pointed concentration, letting external spirits come in or practicing compassion for them, abandoning oneself, not having any attachments, and practicing not to be reborn again).
You've clearly confused the practice of meditation with certain religions that use the practice as part of their woo woo nonsense.
Meditation isn't about any of that; meditation is simply about learning to control the tool that is your mind rather than letting it control you. It is the practice of awareness without the incessant chattering of the mind. It is about learning that you are not your thoughts, nor are you a slave to them. There's nothing mystical about it.
> Therefore I am asking you to go look at what really happens to people who practice meditation and then confirm how what they can see, how they behave, and what kind of problems they have, are different from some people in human history who really had opened their eyes completely.
I didn't ask you to give me homework, I ask for evidence that your claims about meditation are true. You've provided none. If you can't back up claims you make, don't make them.
> Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin, and you can't recognize evidence until you can understand what it means.
No they are not. Science is a philosophy, one based on evidence and logic. None of which you have shown here.
> I regret that I couldn't have had a proper conversation with you.
I don't believe you do. I believe you regret being asked for evidence of your claims.