Other scripting languages?
jim
javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
IE and Opera or are there others?
The scripting that I am refering to is scripting that will show in the
user's browser when you "view source" - not scripting languages that run on
the server.
Thanks!
jim
VK
> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
> IE and Opera or are there others?
Yes, it is the only client-side scripting language that is supported
by default (unless explicetly disabled) by all modern browsers.
Internet Explorer also supports VBScript but no other browser does.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
> IE and Opera or are there others?
Please understand that there is no "javascript", but there are different
ECMAScript implementations. JavaScript[tm] is Netscape/Mozilla.org's
ECMAScript implementation, supported e.g. by Mozilla Firefox. There are
other ECMAScript implementations, such as Microsoft JScript, available in
MSHTML-based user agents like Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Implementations extend the ECMAScript Language Specification in a number of
different ways and implement different Editions of the Specification.
Therefore they differ from one another. (Furthermore, different user agents
provide a different AOM/DOM API to be scripted, independent of the
programming language.)
MSHTML-based UAs, such as IE, also support VBScript as scripting language.
> The scripting that I am refering to is scripting that will show in the
> user's browser when you "view source" - not scripting languages that run on
> the server.
That is pretty obvious as server-side code does _not_ run *in* the browser
(client-side), or IOW the browser does not matter at all then.
HTH
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote:
>> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
>> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
>> IE and Opera or are there others?
>
> Yes, it is the only client-side scripting language that is supported
Nonsense. There is no such language, and there are several different
ECMAScript implementations. Your failure to recognize and accept that is
one of the reasons why your code and your understanding of the topics
discussed here is particularly bad.
VK
wrote:
> VK wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote:
> >> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
> >> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
> >> IE and Opera or are there others?
>
> > Yes, it is the only client-side scripting language that is supported
> > by default [...]
>
> Nonsense. There is no such language
So don't program then - at least on a non-existing language, let other
do it. And stop scaring all newcomers: with you posting style the
least anyone wants ever do is to ask anything again in this
newsgroup.
Also if you do not agree with the terms used in this group FAQ then
it should be handled by the specified procedure, such as
1) Reading
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ2_1
2) Do not agree with used terms
3) Argumenting your point of view as specified at
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> On Mar 30, 2:12 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
> wrote:
>> VK wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote:
>>>> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
>>>> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
>>>> IE and Opera or are there others?
>>> Yes, it is the only client-side scripting language that is supported
>>> by default [...]
>> Nonsense. There is no such language
>
> So don't program then - at least on a non-existing language, let other
> do it. And stop scaring all newcomers: with you posting style the
> least anyone wants ever do is to ask anything again in this
Your destroying the context of my statement again, and all your other
pointless rambling aside:
Your statement that there is a single programming language called
"javascript" that is supported by all (modern) user agents is simply
utterly wrong.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ2_1
The FAQ currently also contains a significant number of inaccuracies and
errors, this one being one of the former. Worse, it does not appear to be
updated according to the suggestions made here.
> [...]
> 3) Argumenting your point of view as specified at
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5
That would be pointless because Randy Webb, the only active current FAQ
maintainer is not competent enough to recognize ECMAScript as an implemented
extensible language standard, and to participate in a technical discussion
by providing a single non-fallacious argument.
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Your statement that there is a single programming language called
> "javascript" that is supported by all (modern) user agents is simply
> utterly wrong.
No. It might not be not the entire truth, but for many, many cases, it
is close enough. The pedantically correct answer is indeed that there
is no language oficially named "javascript" (It's "JavaScript",
"JScript" or just "an implementation of ECMAScript", depending on
browser). But if one sticks with that logic in all cases, then the
statement "No browser supports javascript" is both true and
dangerously misleading.
There exists, in the minds of developers, a concept of a language that
is supported by all modern, scriptable browsers. That language has no
official name (the closest being "an implementation of ECMAScript",
but nobody uses that). The de-facto name given to it by the people who
use it is indeed "javascript".
And in that context, it is correct that javascript is the only client-
side scripting language that is supported by default by all modern
script-supporting browsers.
Javascript then has diverse implementations. A name defines a group
of things. In this case, a diverse group of languages with a common
core, inherited from Netscape's JavaScript and Microsoft's JScript,
and standardized as ECMAScript.
There are more names that are correct and relevant than those that
are formally specified.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - l...@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Tom de Neef
What you need is script that will be accepted by browsers when it appears in
the <script type=txt/javascript> element. For all practical purposes we call
that 'javascript'.
I have just completed my first serious project of a few thousand lines.
You will need an editor and a test environment. Any editor will do. Some
will color-code the text and 'understand' the language structure. I failed
to get those to work properly. I bought Antechinus and that is a fiasco. It
stalls so often during debugging that I don't use it for that any longer.
For testing I use Firebug. Compared to what you can get for old-fashioned
languages like Delphi this is still primitive but it is a great help.
Success!
Tom
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> VK wrote:
>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ2_1
>
> The FAQ currently also contains a significant number of inaccuracies and
> errors, this one being one of the former. Worse, it does not appear to be
> updated according to the suggestions made here.
Or perhaps it merely disagrees with your opinion on the usage of the name
"javascript".
I do not personally want it updated, and think it is perfectly
adequate as it is.
>> [...]
>> 3) Argumenting your point of view as specified at
>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5
>
> That would be pointless because Randy Webb, the only active current FAQ
> maintainer is not competent enough to recognize ECMAScript as an implemented
> extensible language standard, and to participate in a technical discussion
> by providing a single non-fallacious argument.
The bitterness! The pain!
You could propose to take over maintaining the FAQ.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>> Your statement that there is a single programming language called
>> "javascript" that is supported by all (modern) user agents is simply
>> utterly wrong.
>
> No. It might not be not the entire truth, but for many, many cases, it
It is just plain wrong. That there may be many cases (care to provide
proof?) where ECMAScript implementations are *similar*, does not make those
programming languages the same, as little as Java and JavaScript are similar
but not the same. This is most visible with the numerous extensions that
JavaScript provides and the numerous extensions that JScript provides.
It is instead the case that you cannot assume that a script that runs in one
implementation (i.e. user agent) also runs in another without testing the
other implementation (i.e. testing in the other user agent). To ignore that
and assume that would only be one language, and one implementation, called
"javascript", despite sufficient evidence to the contrary, is just plain stupid.
It is even more stupid to make-believe this in an explanation to the
uninitiated Web developer (hereafter called "newbie"), because the result of
this is that the newbie will ultimately write code that they believe to work
everywhere because it is "javascript", and as a consequence of that
misconception will attribute behavior in other implementations (and UAs)
that is caused by differences in implementation, whether explicitly
supported by the Conformance section of the Specification or not, to an
improper implementation of that fictitious "javascript" language. This not
a wild assumption of mine, but a fact observed several times already.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>> VK wrote:
>>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ2_1
>> The FAQ currently also contains a significant number of inaccuracies and
>> errors, this one being one of the former. Worse, it does not appear to be
>> updated according to the suggestions made here.
>
> Or perhaps it merely disagrees with your opinion on the usage of the name
> "javascript".
> I do not personally want it updated, and think it is perfectly
> adequate as it is.
You may want to rethink that opinion.
>>> [...]
>>> 3) Argumenting your point of view as specified at
>>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5
>> That would be pointless because Randy Webb, the only active current FAQ
>> maintainer is not competent enough to recognize ECMAScript as an implemented
>> extensible language standard, and to participate in a technical discussion
>> by providing a single non-fallacious argument.
>
> The bitterness! The pain!
I am simply stating the facts.
> You could propose to take over maintaining the FAQ.
I have been considering this, indeed.
VK
>
> I have been considering this, indeed.
God forbids such disaster!
:-)
:-|
[1] In the application to the used common name of the scripted
language.
First of all comp.lang.javascript is a Big 8 newsgroup with a publicly
voted group charter and group description. Both of them are stating
that this group is/was/will about "Netscape Communications Corp.'s
JavaScript language." That means that "JavaScript" as an accepted name
is always allowed here. Whoever cannot live with it is welcome to
leave this group and apply for a new one with the corresponding
charter and description. That is not disputable: not because VK says
so but simply because the Usenet works this way and not other way
around.
This way the discussion can be about the best common term _suggested_
but not implied in this newsgroup as of year 2008. As much as I
understand your criticism, you are suggesting to exclude "javascript"
term in any spelling in whole and use "ECMAScript-compliant
implementations" instead. Is it correct?
However low chance to pass such proposal would have, you still can
initiate the discussion as stated at
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_2
If the majority of responses sustain your proposal then it would give
you the right to correct term usage in further posts without referring
to your personal opinion which is obligatory now and until that point.
That means no "use the right term!" from your side but only "in my
most strong personal opinion, the right term is..." and similar.
[2] FAQ updates
Randy Webb is the current FAQ Maintainer - with all unpaid hassles
such position does imply - but he is neither FAQ Maker nor His Majesty
FAQ Issuer nor anything like that.
c.l.j. FAQ has a very long history with some texts and samples going
back to 1996. It doesn't mean that they cannot be changed anymore, of
course not, it just unfair to hold the current FAQ Maintainer
responsible for each piece.
See http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/8954de60cffe6dab
Randy Webb became the next FAQ Maintainer after the public discussion
and voting
See http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/d195acb5725d8872
If you consider his activity as insufficient you may start a separate
FAQ*ENTRY stating what exactly is insufficient and who and why would
be better on this position.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> [...]
> First of all comp.lang.javascript is a Big 8 newsgroup with a publicly
> voted group charter and group description. Both of them are stating
> that this group is/was/will about "Netscape Communications Corp.'s
> JavaScript language." That means that "JavaScript" as an accepted name
> is always allowed here.
Although that charter is somewhat outdated, considering the number of
different ECMAScript implementations that are currently discussed here:
Yes, "JavaScript" is an accepted name and allowed here. You miss the point.
MikeB
"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Point...@web.de> wrote in message
news:47EFA6BA...@PointedEars.de...
> VK wrote:
>> [...]
>> First of all comp.lang.javascript is a Big 8 newsgroup with a publicly
>> voted group charter and group description. Both of them are stating
>> that this group is/was/will about "Netscape Communications Corp.'s
>> JavaScript language." That means that "JavaScript" as an accepted name
>> is always allowed here.
>
> Although that charter is somewhat outdated, considering the number of
> different ECMAScript implementations that are currently discussed here:
>
> Yes, "JavaScript" is an accepted name and allowed here. You miss the point.
Oh, because the language is Case Sensitive... Do I win anything?
MikeB
"Tom de Neef" <tde...@qolor.nl> wrote in message
news:47ef830f$0$14352$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Tom,
I use PrimalScript for editor and actually use the Script Debugger in VS,
since it works with both VBScript and J(ava)Script. PrimalScript does contain
a debugger, but I rarely use it, largely because I'd gotten used to the MS one
as it is similar to the Debugger that pops up JIT on the Server.
> Success!
> Tom
>
> www.qolor.nl/spelling
>
Steve
wrote:
> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
comp.lang.ECMAScript Newsgroup. The advantage for the rest of us being
that we could use comp.lang.javascript to learn and discuss javascript
without putting up with your aggressive rudeness and your pedantic and
factually correct but useless posts.
Steve.
Peter Michaux
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> writes:
[snip]
> >> 3) Argumenting your point of view as specified at
> >>http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5
>
> > That would be pointless because Randy Webb, the only active current FAQ
> > maintainer is not competent enough to recognize ECMAScript as an implemented
> > extensible language standard, and to participate in a technical discussion
> > by providing a single non-fallacious argument.
>
> The bitterness! The pain!
> You could propose to take over maintaining the FAQ.
I wonder how the readability of the FAQ might change.
Peter
Stevo
> jim wrote:
>> I am new to web programming with javascript and I was wondering if
>> javascript is the only scripting language that run in browsers like Firefox,
>> IE and Opera or are there others?
>
> Please understand that there is no "javascript"
There's still a Santa Claus though, right ?
Thomas, you're being too pedantic. It's not a good look for you. Chill
out, let's all run naked and free and call javascript a language.
VK
> > PointedEars
>
> There's still a Santa Claus though, right ?
[With my deep respect to Mr. Francis P. Church]
Yes, Virginia, there is a Javascript. He exists as certainly as
Internet and Web and HTML exist, and you know that they abound and
give to your surfing experience its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how
dreary would be the Web if there were no Javascript! It would be as
dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no rich web
applications then, no hope to fight with Microsoft Office, no friendly
interfaces to make tolerable this existence. We should have no
enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which
childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
:-)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
You should become a professional fairytale-teller instead as it turns out to
be your true calling.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Logos
> Maybe it would be a good idea for you (PointedEars) to start a
> comp.lang.ECMAScript Newsgroup. The advantage for the rest of us being
> that we could use comp.lang.javascript to learn and discuss javascript
> without putting up with your aggressive rudeness and your pedantic and
> factually correct but useless posts.
>
> Steve.
I'll second that! PointedEars is amazingly hostile and unhelpful in
many of the posts I've read, and quite often fails to address the
question of the poster altogether, instead spinning off into
legalistic wrangling. It would be fine if 1, he was polite about it
and 2, went on to actually address the poster's concerns, but
frequently he does neither.
Tyler
Logos
Hey Jim. Javascript is your only option, unless you are working on a
controlled corporate intranet and can be certain all your users will
have IE with vbscript enabled on the client side.
Tyler