Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
lorlarz
This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
world's
shortests books).
I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
_is_
smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
JavaScript
and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
how to play
with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
With what
Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
javascript on the
web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
implemented
and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
this is
an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
about.
Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
to
Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
lorlarz
> Crockford'sJavaScript,The Good Parts(a book review).
> This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
> world's
> shortests books).
>
> I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
> _is_
> smart and good).. But, how can he write a book onthe good partsofJavaScript
> and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
> how to play
> with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
> With what
> web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
>
> Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
> implemented
> and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
> this is
> about.
>
> Fortunately, I have read about 20 goodJavaScriptbooks (and contrary
> to
> Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
> examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
P.S. OTHER rather recent books I found plenty of reason to enjoy
(good examples make good books):
Pro JavaScript Design Patterns by Harmes & Dias (Apress,2008)
jQuery in Action by Bibeault & Kayz (Manning, 2008)
The Art and Science of JavaScript by Adams et al (Sitepoint, 2008)
JavaScript Phrasebook by Wenz (Sams, 2007)
Pro JavaScript Techniques by Resig (Apress, 2006)
Simply JavaScript by Yank and Adams (Sitepoint, 2007)
CSS, DHTML, & Ajax (4th ed.) by Teague (Peachpit, 2007)
JavaScript, the Definitive Guide (5th ed.) by Flanagan (O’Reilly,
2006) (I also read and worked through the earlier 4th ed., 2002)
The JavaScript Anthology 101 Essential Tips, … by Edwards and Adams
(Sitepoint, 2006)
JavaScript Bible (5th ed.) by Goodman and Morrison (Wiley, 2004) and
earlier editions.
If you don't like any of those books, you must be nuts. Good examples
make good books.
and an oldie I still do not regret having read:
JavaScript Application Cookbook by Bradenbaugh (O’Reilly, 1999) (an
oldie, great in its day; still helpful)
Joost Diepenmaat
> Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
> This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
> world's
> shortests books).
>
> I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
> _is_
> smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
> JavaScript
> and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
> how to play
> with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
> With what
> Crockford talks about we don't have enough to actually _use_
> javascript on the
> web (i.e on the Internet in a browser).
>
> Is this a weakness? Yes. Damned right. CSS may not be fully
> implemented
> and the DOM is not fully standardized across browsers, but NONE of
> this is
> an insurmountable problem _and_ it **_IS_** what JavaScript is all
> about.
Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
The language itself does NOT include any CSS, DOM, BOM or whatever,
and there is at least one fairly popular implementation that doesn't
address CSS etc at all. See: actionscript.
Things are not as bad as back in the 90s, but in the whole DOM/CSS/BOM
bag there is still an unreasonably large lump of compatibility crap to
deal with, and putting all that into a book about "good coding
practices" would dilute the good bits probably to the point of making
them footnotes.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
lorlarz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
functions
for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
are
_javascript_ functions. AND, they are what allow much of the
communication
that is JavaScript in action. Examples:
GetElementById(string which is element id);
createElement(string which is element type);
[element to appendTo].appendChild(variable representing new element);
document.getElementById(elementName).value = variable or string;
document.getElementById(elementName)style.display = "none";
document.getElementById(elementName).innerHTML = "hi";
Without such stuff there is NO javascript program that actually does
anything
in the browsers. NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
are
happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Hey. You really are being ridiculous. The many many JavaScript
> functions
> for addressing and altering the DOM and addressing an altering CSS
> are
> _javascript_ functions.
[ blah blah blah ]
> NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT SUCH FUNCTIONS, unless you
> are
> happy with alerts. Really. Get real.
I wasn't talking about browsers. Anyway, what makes you think alerts
are in the language?
regardless of the title of the book, it's about ecmascript:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
lorlarz
Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).
If you don't like reading books
that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
way
less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.
If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
can put
Crockford's principles to good use
and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
everything.
Good time to catch up
now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book.
I never claimed you did not.
> It is about a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small
> subset). If you don't like reading books that show realistic
> examples, you might be confused.
Or maybe I just don't like browsers. Please learn the difference
between languages and libraries.
> But, Crockford is way less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way
> covers JavaScript.
So what if he doesn't cover all of the browser model? Flanagan makes
sweeping and incorrect claims about the language. Personally, I'd
think you need at least both. Until someone comes along to write a
complete and correct book.
> If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
> If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
> can put
> Crockford's principles to good use
> and learn much, much, much, much more of JavaScript and do
> everything.
So we agree you'd need both, then.
> Good time to catch up
> now before the new revision of ecmascript comes out.
Good luck waiting for the MS implementation. Me, I need to get work
done today.
RobG
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
> > This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
> > world's
> > shortests books).
>
> > I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
> > _is_
> > smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
> > JavaScript
> > and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird. It's like
> > how to play
> > with things but not address the real things JS is made to play with.
> Good that your post reminded me to get the book. Anyway, Crockford as
> far as I can tell, is fed up with the shoddy way people actualy *code*
> in javascript/ecmascript, and has set out to write a book to teach
> coders how to make effective use of the *language*.
I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been
called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
Anyhow, I agree with your sentiments that too many programmers don't
bother learning the underlying language before trying to use it, if
this book helps fix that, it can only do good.
As for the comparison with Flanagan, I think that's apples v oranges.
Flanagan sets out to cover ECMAScript and javascript in browsers in
about 1,000 pages while Crockford's book sticks to ECMAScript and is
about 150 pages. Most of the "Good Parts" reviews are positive, the
negative ones seem more like sour grapes from people who don't like
his writing style (they don't highlight technical or factual errors,
just style or content gripes).
--
Rob
lorlarz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period. So,
is Flanagan's
book. It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
about something
else. IT IS NOT. Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
because it
does not cover enough of the langauge to use it. Flanagan does (to
say the least).
Crockford does some things better. True. That is his only claim to
fame. After you
know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
few aspects as
he covers a small subset. Otherwise your know is less than
incomplete. It is
inadequate and you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
JavaScript
programmer. That is the truth.
Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
It is
not enough to do anything by itself. For any purpose for which
ECMAScript aka
JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*. Of course, those
ignorant of
JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
(and Crockford's)
YUI, but
you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
specifics of the
language and it will be a crutch.
lorlarz
was
" ... ECMAScript *or* JavaScript programmer ..."
Let me add, the first line of Crockford's Preface to JavaScript, The
Good Parts,
reads:
"This is a book about the JavaScript programming language ... "
and then
he soon says:
"It is not exhaustive about the language and its quirks. It does not
contain
everything you/ll ever need to know"
(and this is one tremendous gross and extreme understatement !!!!!!!)
Flanagan's book is called: JavaScript, The Definitive Guide.
> language and it will be a crutch.- Hide quoted text -
Aaron Gray
news:468580d0-796d-46bb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> Crockford's JavaScript, The Good Parts (a book review).
> This shall perhaps be the world's shortest book review (for one of the
> world's
> shortests books).
It was not as good a book as I was hoping for.
It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the grammer.
It missed out instanceof too.
Read it quickly then passed it on to a friend to read.
Pro Javascript Techniques was a bit crappy too, with things like 'self' used
but not explained. Inconsistent code in examples calling functions that were
not given.
Pro Javascript Design Patterns seems better, just started reading it.
Aaron
lorlarz
> "lorlarz" <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Aaron
The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
there on
how to do things right. Its coverage of the language, like
Crockford's , is partial
& minimal (because the book is not out to cover the language, but show
examples of
uses of design patterns with the JS language!). Unfortunately,
Crockford was not
as clear that it was really just that sort of thing *he* was doing
too!!; in fact,
he kind of pretends to be covering the "good parts of the language"
while he misses
at least half (or more) of any "good parts" necessary just to use the
language --
thus misses likely much more than half of what could be considered
"good".
From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
pompous).
He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
changed
his mind (old foggy). And he apparently has missed MANY !!: Here's
some, each of
which would do any JavaScripter MORE good than his short limited book
(I guarantee it):
Professional Ajax (2nd ed.) by Zakas, McPeak, & Fawcett (Wrox, 2007)
Peter Michaux
> Crockford's book is about JavaScript (*aka* ECMAScript) period.
So he didn't drift off the topic he selected. Good for him and good
for his editor.
> So, is Flanagan's book.
Flangan's book is not about JavaScript "period". Flanagan's book is
about JavaScript, browser scripting and some applications outside of
the browser.
> It is entirely incorrect to indicate that Crockford's book is
> about something else. IT IS NOT.
> Crockford's is simply too incomplete to be usable
> because it does not cover enough of the langauge to use it.
Crockford's book is not meant to be read by a beginner. He states that
somewhere. I wish there were more books like Crockford's where a
thoughtful JavaScript programmer has written down lessons learned and
some reasons why.
There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
> Flanagan does (to say the least).
There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
> Crockford does some things better. True.
Great. Would you rather he had not shared them?
> That is his only claim to fame. After you
> know a lot of JavaScript, you can study Crockford's ravings about a
> few aspects as he covers a small subset.
I believe that is exactly why he wrote the book. Again it seems like
he achieved his goal.
> Otherwise your know is less than incomplete. It is inadequate and
> you could not consider yourself to be an ECMAScript of
> JavaScript programmer. That is the truth.
You seem to have missed the point of his book and want to publicly
display that you have.
> Also Crockford's book is only 100p long, not counting the Appendixes.
> It is not enough to do anything by itself.
It makes for a nice summary of his writing and videos on the web.
> For any purpose for which
> ECMAScript aka
> JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.
JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
it then.
> Of course, those ignorant of
> JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
> (and Crockford's) YUI,
There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
> but
> you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
> specifics of the
> language and it will be a crutch.
The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
about JavaScript.
I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
practices.
What is your point anyway?
Peter
dhtml
> On Aug 18, 7:37 pm, "Aaron Gray" <ang.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "lorlarz" <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:468580d0-796d-46bb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
[snip]
>
> The Pro JavaScript Design Patterns book is a better book. Much more
> there on
> how to do things right.
You've provided no example of such 'right' programming, so we have no
way of assessing what you think is right or wrong.
> From what I can tell Crockford is just a bit "off" (irrational and
> pompous).
What does your personal judgment about Doug's personality have to do
with the book?
> He decided in 2001 there was no other "good book" and he has never
> changed
> his mind (old foggy).
>
[snip]
The only thing that is 'foggy' is your understanding of what EcmaScript
is. You can potentially change this by reading the ECMA-262 manual,
online, for free. There's an HTML edition on bclary.com.
As Joost and Peter pointed out to you, the books you listed are mostly
related to browser scripting and JavaScript libraries. I see that your
book selection includes a book of how to use jQuery.
Garrett
Gregor Kofler
> But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
> JavaScript
> and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.
Because it's about *JavaScript*. And he probably didn't want to write
zillions of pages dealing with all those browser peculiarities. And add
errata every other week. And still being "incomplete". And just doing a
rehash of all the ressources found on the web.
> Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
> to
> Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
> examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
Interesting. I haven't read another book than Crockford's and still can
write decent JS manipulating the DOM.
However, Crockford had me convinced to get off all this
pseude-class-based JS style. And I'm pretty sure my JS is now shorter,
faster and more JS than before.
Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Gregor Kofler
> It did not include full gammar despite two separate versions of the
> grammer.
As he says: He want's to concentrate on a small subset of JS. The Good
Parts. And leave out all the stuff he deems a burden and/or superfluous.
He also leaves out all String methods. Who cares? Read about them on any
readily available WWW ressource like mozilla.org.
Gregor Kofler
[crap snipped]
Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
Resort to Resig's alternatives.
Gregor Kofler
>> --
>> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/
Could you post correctly. Puhleze.
> Incorrect. I read Crockford's entire Good Parts book. It is about
> a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of ecmascript (a very small subset).
Cool. That's what I bought it for. To learn about the Good Parts of
Java/ECMAScript. I wasn't disappointed.
> If you don't like reading books
> that show realistic examples, you might be confused. But, Crockford is
> way
> less than Flanagan. Crockford in no way covers JavaScript.
He covers the Good Parts of it.
> If you had only Crockford's book, you could do about nothing.
Crockford never claims to do that.
> If you have Flanagan's book (JavaScript, The Definitive Guide), you
> can put
> Crockford's principles to good use
See.
lorlarz
> On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
I agree. You must read several books, preferable loaded with working
examples. Nothing like that in Crockford, so what he offers is
something
else. Style advice and principles of good coding, and that is all.
Very little,
esp. since dealing with things that AFFECT the UI is a huge topic area
not
dealt with at all by him.
[snip]
> > For any purpose for which
> > ECMAScript aka
> > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.
>
> JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
> it then.
Indeed JS has no UI of its own. What I meant of course is that
Crockford
covers NONE of the functions that interact with and change the visible
components
of the DOM (that which changes the UI for the user in response to
interaction, or
as time passes)
>
> > Of course, those ignorant of
> > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
> > (and Crockford's) YUI,
>
> There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
> see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
>
> > but
> > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
> > specifics of the
> > language and it will be a crutch.
Leaving out coverage of good uses of functions that manipulate CSS and
DOM
is a huge incompleteness to any presentation of JavaScript. It is not
like
there are not better and worse ways to do things here. For example,
one
big issue is CSS vs DOM manipulation, which both can accomplish the
same thing.
How to do thing correctly with good combinations of DOM features and
CSS and
then using the related functions is a HUGE area where we need to
develop good
practice.
I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see
in a
browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.
>
> The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
> about JavaScript.
>
> I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
> even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
> practices.
>
> What is your point anyway?
My point is: Even as a book that is trying to present just some best
practices
and principles for doing things, this book does less than half a job.
The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really
so misleading
in making that claim as to be fraudulent. Crockford claims he does
twice a job
than what he actually does (and probably much less). The DOM
manipulation vs
CSS issue and best practices and principles to use here would fill 300
pages
(being just the same sort of practices and principles subset book that
Crockford's
is).
Crockford's description of what he is offering is so inaccurate as to
be delusional.
By the way, I am no JS library lover. I do all raw and from scratch
in most of
my programs. SO I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK.
beegee
*language*.
>
> I nearly bought it, perhaps I will now. I expect it should have been
> called ECMAScript: The Good Parts but got called JavaScript for the
> same reason there's "Java" in "JavaScript". :-)
>
This is true. Crockford doesn't cover CSS and DOM and he also doesn't
cover FileSystemObject and other command line third-party library
objects. It is about pure ECMAscript and 150 pages is what he needs
to cover it pretty well.
The book is very helpful to me, clarifies many things I was fuzzy on.
It's the only book on any language I've bought this year. It's
comparable to the "The C Language" by Kernigan and Richie. You
couldn't actually write programs from that book either but when your
program 'sploded it was that book that I turned to to find out why.
Bob
lorlarz
> lorlarz meinte:
>
> [crap snipped]
>
> Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
> Resort to Resig's alternatives.
>
> Gregor
>
Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want
to
read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a
single decent
interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book
(and perhaps
couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"!
What a joke.
How are you going to
effectively and efficiently change the user interface? Crcokford does
not
help even the slightest bit here, though this is a major issue (just
perhaps not
one pat enough for crabby Crockford's taste). About 10 good books
Crockford
shows no respect for are the only sources to learn anything about
this,
including any principles of good coding in this area. He disrespects
the
hard work of a decade of hard-working book writers -- all people I
read and
learned greatly from (though admittedly many of the books were in some
ways "bad"
and often read like encyclopedias). But, Crockford's book is bad
because it is so
incomplete and its examples covering only a small subset of the
practical functions
in Javascript. Really good books show really good programs (at least
some) and they
actually appear in your browser. Crockford has written just another
very bad book,
from this perspective. CSS/DOM: Do the Crockfordians forget is
exists or that
there are many good/bad practices in dealing in this area??
Crockford's book (to be useful) really assumes you know at least many
many
times as much about JavaScript than is in the book. Crockford's
abstract
examples do not deal with much of the JavaScript a JavaScript
programmer uses.
Places where we need to have principles and best practices clarified.
CSS/DOM
Crockford is good in his small limited area. I learned from him and I
value
that learning. But the conceit of Crockford and disparaging other
books, when '
he writes just one that is outrageous limited and incomplete makes me
think he is an
old foggie.
lorlarz
I agree with you completely EXCEPT that the title and things Crockford
says
in the book belie the extremely limited scope and extremely incomplete
and
partial coverage of the great JavaScript language I have been
programming in
and producing full browser programs with for 10 years.
No scholar should show the disrespect for other needed resources
Crockford shows,
Perhaps, Newton late in life could say there was no physics before
him, after he
published several huge works. But, such a situation is rare and
Crockford with his
100-page book (many pages filled with weird simple useless 'diagrams')
is NOT a body
of work that puts him in this position. Yet, he is so "good" (in his
own mind)
he misleads people with at
least implicit claims that the "good parts" are all there. I wonder
if Crockford
can even manipulate the DOM or CSS. Really.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Frankly, I just thing you Crockford fanatics are lazy and just want
> to
> read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a
> single decent
> interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book
> (and perhaps
> couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"!
> What a joke.
If you seriously think the "best parts" of javascript is the ability
of change a div's style you are really not the target audience of the
book.
Next time, leave the programming books to the programmers.
lorlarz
Are these programs?:
http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html
http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm
http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
builds http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/ (menu itself is by
Danny Goodman,
builder is my addon)
http://mynichecomputing.com/digitallearning/yourOwn.htm
http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/
Yes, they are. Programs a person can actually run in a browser and
show
something and do something and that people can use. Where are
Crockford's??
I believe he has none. (By the way, I use a JS library only in one of
the
above programs).
lorlarz
If you seriously think there are not great issues relating to DOM and
CSS
setup and how to use them, all your programs must be used only by
nerds
doing calculations and nothing that is used by, for example, teachers
and
students and real people building and doing real things.
There are great questions about the best way to setup DOM and CSS and
interact
with the user (and actually making things happen -- it's called user
interaction)
and do it well. Apparently
Crockford has missed all these issues, devaluing and insulting all the
great
books showing good ideas and good practices in this area. If you
think that the
way to actually create the changes and interactivity on a web site are
simple
clear and obvious or that there is only "one way", then you have not
built programs for people.
lorlarz
Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years. I am
a
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
Microsoft
Certified ASP.NET programmer.
Thus, I think I am a programmer. I also make programs people can see
and use.
Where are Douglas Crockford's?
Joost Diepenmaat
> If you seriously think there are not great issues relating to DOM and
> CSS
> setup and how to use them, all your programs must be used only by
> nerds
> doing calculations and nothing that is used by, for example, teachers
> and
> students and real people building and doing real things.
>
> There are great questions about the best way to setup DOM and CSS and
> interact
> with the user (and actually making things happen -- it's called user
> interaction)
> and do it well.
There are all kinds of questions that people seem to have about these
things, but the only interesting question is: "how do I make this
useful for the end-user" which isn't a programming question.
if your question is: how the hell do i make this work cross-browser
(boring, and still has more to do with searching through the
non-standard APIs for the top X browsers than actual programming - and
in the case of MS most of the non-standard APIs aren't even
exclusively JS APIs).
Also, any book answering question 2 will be out of date the moment
it's in the shops.
> Apparently
> Crockford has missed all these issues, devaluing and insulting all the
> great
> books showing good ideas and good practices in this area. If you
> think that the
> way to actually create the changes and interactivity on a web site are
> simple
> clear and obvious or that there is only "one way", then you have not
> built programs for people.
As I said, those aren't programming problems.
lorlarz
alerts are not in the language. That is something in the browser.
Because
Crockford does not address anything that effect the UI, you would be
left
to alerts (something NOT in JS) because Crockford, the pompous ass,
does not
cover manipulating
UI. MY very point
lorlarz
There are as many choices and questions of good programming practices
and how to be efficient and have reusable or modular code in the CSS/
DOM area
as there are in the functional area covered by Crockford. Probably
many more
big issues. Only the other
books I listed with great examples to learn from can teach you this.
Actually, I believe Crockford dealt by far with the easiest questions.
The man
may not have the ability to deal in the challenging area of using JS
to effectively
build and change the UI. It's probably harder and perhaps too hard
for
Crockford (but he gives you all you need to process and turn out
numbers, perhaps).
Some people cannot take on challenging areas, because so much less is
so much less
pat.
Evertjan.
> There are all kinds of questions that people seem to have about these
> things, but the only interesting question is: "how do I make this
> useful for the end-user" which isn't a programming question.
No, there is more, Joost:
How do I programming for my hobby or work so much fun,
that sitting in front of the telly, or going farming is not more fun.
Programming can be done in style, with maximum compactness, with special
whit or etc., all transparent to the end-user, but necessary for your
enjoyment.
I find that to be far more interesting than the end-user.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
lorlarz
Let's see how you do with your attitude. What have you actually
produced
for the Internet? Is there anything with a visible interface that
people
can interact with ? That's the test. Yep. Give a list of links like
I have.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with issues because you haven't made
anything (?)
and simply do not appreciate the whole area and programming practices
here.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Let's see how you do with your attitude. What have you actually
> produced
> for the Internet? Is there anything with a visible interface that
> people
> can interact with ? That's the test. Yep. Give a list of links like
> I have.
https://stadsarchief.amsterdam.nl/archieven/archiefbank/inventaris/920.nl.html?p=&t=153#
HTH,
Joost.
lorlarz
>
> > Fortunately, I have read about 20 good JavaScript books (and contrary
> > to
> > Crockford there ARE good books) and what made them good was excellent
> > examples of manipulating CSS and the DOM.
>
> Interesting. I haven't read another book than Crockford's and still can
> write decent JS manipulating the DOM.
>
>
> Gregor
>
> --http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
via
CSS.
Peter Michaux
> On Aug 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 18, 5:19 pm, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > There is no "complete" book available to learn browser scripting.
>
> I agree. You must read several books, preferable loaded with working
> examples. Nothing like that in Crockford, so what he offers is
> something
> else. Style advice and principles of good coding, and that is all.
> Very little,
> esp. since dealing with things that AFFECT the UI is a huge topic area
> not
> dealt with at all by him.
He is not writing about UI *on* *purpose*!
> [snip]
>
> > > For any purpose for which
> > > ECMAScript aka
> > > JavaScript is used. Fact. *There is no UI*.
>
> > JavaScript doesn't have any UI so it is a good thing he didn't cover
> > it then.
>
> Indeed JS has no UI of its own. What I meant of course is that
> Crockford
> covers NONE of the functions that interact with and change the visible
> components
> of the DOM (that which changes the UI for the user in response to
> interaction, or
> as time passes)
He doesn't discuss those things because they are *out* *of* *scope*
for his book.
> > > Of course, those ignorant of
> > > JavaScript can get some predone and prepackaged stuff from Yahoo's
> > > (and Crockford's) YUI,
>
> > There is an assumption here that Crockford influences YUI but I don't
> > see a great deal of influence when I look in the YUI code.
>
> > > but
> > > you will remain ignorant of some of the elementals -- the real
> > > specifics of the
> > > language and it will be a crutch.
>
> Leaving out coverage of good uses of functions that manipulate CSS and
> DOM
> is a huge incompleteness to any presentation of JavaScript.
No it isn't. If a book is to discuss JavaScript in specific it should
*not* discuss CSS and/or the DOM.
> It is not
> like
> there are not better and worse ways to do things here. For example,
> one
> big issue is CSS vs DOM manipulation, which both can accomplish the
> same thing.
> How to do thing correctly with good combinations of DOM features and
> CSS and
> then using the related functions is a HUGE area where we need to
> develop good
> practice.
Sounds like you should be writing "Browser Scripting: The Good Parts"
because no one has set out to do that yet.
> I am being to doubt tha Crockford ever deals with anything people see
> in a
> browser, this extreme larger oversight is so tremedous.
It was not an oversight.
> > The book was not meant to be a programmers only source of information
> > about JavaScript.
>
> > I don't think Crockford's book is perfect but it is a worthwhile read
> > even if it just causes the reader to reconsider some of his own
> > practices.
>
> > What is your point anyway?
>
> My point is: Even as a book that is trying to present just some best
> practices
> and principles for doing things, this book does less than half a job.
The book sets out to discuss the parts of the JavaScript language
which Crockford thinks are the good parts. That is a good idea for a
book.
> The book, claiming to cover the 'good parts' of JavaScript is really
> so misleading
I don't think so.
> in making that claim as to be fraudulent.
I don't think so.
You seem to either desperately want the book to be something it wasn't
intended to be or your money back. I don't understand your motivation.
> Crockford claims he does
> twice a job
> than what he actually does (and probably much less). The DOM
> manipulation vs
> CSS issue and best practices and principles to use here would fill 300
> pages
> (being just the same sort of practices and principles subset book that
> Crockford's
> is).
>
> Crockford's description of what he is offering is so inaccurate as to
> be delusional.
I didn't find it to be inaccurate. I'm somewhat dumbfounded that you
do find it inaccurate and are so angry and disappointed about that
misunderstanding.
> By the way, I am no JS library lover. I do all raw and from scratch
> in most of
> my programs. SO I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK.
Good for you.
Peter
optimistx
...
> Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
> see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
> I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> via
> CSS.
Assume Crockford had considered for- statement and the object literal the
'good parts of javascript' in his opinion.
Then he wrote a book of those. Why would we complain? 'Good book, but wrong
topic!' ?
Dr J R Stockton
g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:
>I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.
>_is_
>smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
>JavaScript
>and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.
Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.
Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
irrelevant material. It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.
Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
need of such.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
NOT <URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines
lorlarz
> In comp.lang.javascript message <468580d0-796d-46bb-b179-0cae2c710c8c@26
> g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:47:56, lorlarz
>
> >I like Douglas Crockford (because I am a crabby old man too; plus he
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's clearly not a necessary condition; it may not even be sufficient.
>
> >_is_
> >smart and good).. But, how can he write a book on the good parts of
> >JavaScript
> >and not mention functions that address CSS & DOM? Weird.
>
> Because JavaScript is independent of CSS and the browser DOM.
>
Javascript is NOT independent of the DOM and CSS _if_ you look at many
of the
functiions
in the language ARE and what they are FOR. There are many functions
for walking
the DOM, creating DOM elements, adding those elements dynamically to
the page
and another whole large set of functions also _in the language known
as
JavaScript_ for manipulating CSS and thus dynamically affecting the
page that way.
In the sense YOU speak, JavaScript is INDEPENDENT OF EVERYTHING. See
how
little sense that makes? Some day when YOU, like me, start making
actual
full-blown Javascript applications and stop being script kiddies, you
will
appreciate this point. People: start making Javascript Applications!!
And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
history,
if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY designed
to be
independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards NOTWITHSTANDING.
> Those who want to use it only in other situations will not want to buy
> irrelevant material. It can for example be used, in Windows, with WSH
> CScript and WScript; for that, it is often better than the more
> commonly-used VBscript which appeals only to the simple-minder herd that
> find it comfortable to rely on Microsoft as much as they can.
>
> Of course, a well-written similar-sized book on CSS, and one on each of
> the commoner DOMs, would also be worth having available, for those in
> need of such.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?...@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
Joost Diepenmaat
[ reformatted for better reading ]
> Javascript is NOT independent of the DOM and CSS _if_ you look at
> many of the functiions in the language ARE and what they are FOR.
> There are many functions for walking the DOM, creating DOM elements,
> adding those elements dynamically to the page and another whole
> large set of functions also _in the language known as JavaScript_
> for manipulating CSS and thus dynamically affecting the page that
> way.
Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language. They
may or may not be provided by the host environment, if the host
environment is a browser, and feels like it.
> In the sense YOU speak, JavaScript is INDEPENDENT OF EVERYTHING. See
> how
> little sense that makes?
It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
> Some day when YOU, like me, start making actual full-blown
> Javascript applications and stop being script kiddies, you will
> appreciate this point. People: start making Javascript
> Applications!!
Like the "click a letter and a number" "application" you made? Please.
> And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
> Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
> history, if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY
> designed to be independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards
> NOTWITHSTANDING.
Designed or not, right now it definitely IS not bound to web browsers
specifically, and especially not to the DOM - or do you really tink
actionscript is marginal technology? Also check Netscape's own
server-side javascript initiative, which IIRC was created very soon
after netscape's browser-side javascript.
John G Harris
<snip>
>Thus, I think I am a programmer. I also make programs people can see
>and use.
>Where are Douglas Crockford's?
The algorithms in Knuth's famous books are written in a programming
language that won't run in any real computer. Are you complaining about
that as well ?
John
--
John Harris
Gregor Kofler
> Are these programs?:
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
> builds http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/ (menu itself is by
> Danny Goodman,
> builder is my addon)
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/digitallearning/yourOwn.htm
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/
That's a hoot. You are showing off this ...er... stuff? Seem to be
contenders for a crap compo.
To get me right: There's nothing wrong with your examples, as long as
you wouldn't use them to "demonstrate" your proficiency in JS and goof
on others. Normally I'd say "can be improved" - in this case I'd rather
resort to "sod off!".
> something and do something and that people can use. Where are
> Crockford's??
Crockford wrote JSLint. Crockford wrote JSON. Crockford wrote JSMin.
Crockford wrote...
Let's see: My XHR communication utilizes JSON (as do zillions of other
web pages). I check my JS with JSLint to track down nasty, hard to find
bugs, and I use JSON to compress my files. All useful stuff. No need for
lolarz' scripts yet.
> I believe he has none. (By the way, I use a JS library only in one of
> the
> above programs).
jQuery. A wise decision. In this case you should rave about Resig's
books and leave Crockford to the JS aficionados.
Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
Tim Streater
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
scripting instead of, say, PHP?
Gregor Kofler
> Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
> see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
I suppose it's your lacking in German, otherwise you'd have already
found the link. But then... you are incapable to quote properly. Perhaps
this is just over your head.
> I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> via
> CSS.
I didn't need Crockford for *that*.
Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
Stanimir Stamenkov
> Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
> why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
> than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
> scripting instead of, say, PHP?
Because you don't have to learn yet another language, for example.
You may reuse code for optional client-side form validation on the
server-side (depending on the framework), as another example.
--
Stanimir
lorlarz
> lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Let's see how you do with your attitude. What have you actually
> > produced
> > for the Internet? Is there anything with a visible interface that
> > people
> > can interact with ? That's the test. Yep. Give a list of links like
> > I have.
>
Saw your 'program'. Not a program. Running, doing stuff continuously
in Javascript
start to result with several significant steps along the way -- that
is a
program. Trouble is, yours is just script kiddie stuff. You don't
appreciate my point about key parts of javascript because you do not
do
javascript programs. I do JavaScript programs.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
> why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
> than say teaching purposes)? Why might I use it for general purpose
> scripting instead of, say, PHP?
Heh, I wouldn't use PHP for general scripting :-)
Javascript is quite a good as an embedded language, which is what it
is in a browser too. There are a few webservers that support
javascript as a scripting language, which I guess makes sense if
you're already using a lot of javascript at the client - less hassle
converting data back and forth.
Then there's Flash/actionscript - which usually runs in a browser but
has a completely different host object model, and adobe is working
hard at pushing flash/flex/air to the desktop.
Joost Diepenmaat
> Saw your 'program'. Not a program.
Whatever.
> Running, doing stuff continuously
> in Javascript
> start to result with several significant steps along the way -- that
> is a
> program.
What the fuck are you talking about?
> Trouble is, yours is just script kiddie stuff. You don't
> appreciate my point about key parts of javascript because you do not
> do
> javascript programs. I do JavaScript programs.
What points would that be? All you've demonstrated up to now is your
complete and utter ignorance. Oh, and your arrogance - strange how
those things seems to go together.
lorlarz
> lorlarz meinte:
>
> > Please put the program that manipulates the DOM using only what is
> > in Crockford's book up on the Internet. Give us the address. Let's
> > see that program which changes the DOM in interaction with the user.
>
> I suppose it's your lacking in German, otherwise you'd have already
> found the link. But then... you are incapable to quote properly. Perhaps
> this is just over your head.
>
> > I do not think you are telling the truth, since there is nothing in
> > Crockford's book about it, whether directly manipulating the DOM or
> > via
> > CSS.
>
> I didn't need Crockford for *that*.
>
> Gregor
>
Hey, I appreciate Crockford, though could do perfectly ok without him
(though better with him). But, I disagree, the issues of how to
best
programatically interact to change the UI display via the DOM and/or
CSS using the related JavaScript functions IS A BIG TOPIC
AREA ABOUT GOOD PROGRAMMING, looking a a huge groups of JS functions
Crockford is apparently too insecure to address.
If you script kiddies ever tried actually making a PROGRAM with
Javascript
that people could use, you would see this lightning fast.
Tim Streater
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
OK, thanks. I might disagree with you about PHP but that is getting
quite OT so I won't :-)
Michael Wojcik
>
> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.
Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:
> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
A better example might be that C does not include any support for
GUIs, the great number of GUI programs written in C notwithstanding.
That said, I don't think you're going to gain any traction in this
argument. Someone who fetishizes application programming is likely to
remain convinced that UI facilities in the host environment are the
center of the universe, sweet reason notwithstanding.
(Most of *my* ECMAScript work has very little to do with UIs; it's
doing work I actually find interesting, like text processing. And
there the actual language is very relevant, and the DOM and CSS not at
all. But since that's not the "MAIN use" of "Javascript", I suppose it
doesn't count - at least not in the magical fairy world of
"application" programming.)
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
Joost Diepenmaat
> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>>
>> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.
>
> Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:
>
>> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
>
> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
(it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
counts for something, anyway.
> A better example might be that C does not include any support for
> GUIs, the great number of GUI programs written in C notwithstanding.
Probably, yes.
> That said, I don't think you're going to gain any traction in this
> argument. Someone who fetishizes application programming is likely to
> remain convinced that UI facilities in the host environment are the
> center of the universe, sweet reason notwithstanding.
I think you're right, and I already put this guy in my kill file to
prevent further irritation.
> (Most of *my* ECMAScript work has very little to do with UIs; it's
> doing work I actually find interesting, like text processing. And
> there the actual language is very relevant, and the DOM and CSS not at
> all. But since that's not the "MAIN use" of "Javascript", I suppose it
> doesn't count - at least not in the magical fairy world of
> "application" programming.)
I still have a project on the back burner to write an ecmascript
interpreter in Common Lisp. Probably not relevant either. :-)
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:
>> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
>> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
>
> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
It might be optional, if you don't want to be compliant with the ANSI C
standard :)
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:
>> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>>> Talk crap all you want. Those functions are NOT in the language.
>> Indeed (and FWIW I agree with you regarding Crockford's book). However:
>>
>>> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
>> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
>> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
>
> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
> Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
> counts for something, anyway.
Yet I find it hard to imagine to write an efficient OS without libc's stdio.h.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Joost Diepenmaat
> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
>> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
>> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
>> Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
>> counts for something, anyway.
>
> Yet I find it hard to imagine to write an efficient OS without libc's stdio.h.
The OS might *provide* a stdio.h, but an OS would have to *implement*
it itself (or at least, provide the kernel calls with which stdio.h
would be implemented).
See for instance: fopen(3) vs open(2)
But we're getting very off topic now.
Dr J R Stockton
0g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:23:32, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:
>Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years. I am
>a
>Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
>Microsoft
>Certified ASP.NET programmer.
>
Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
quality and (maybe) learn from it.
It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk IE7 FF2 Op9 Sf3
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
lorlarz
> In comp.lang.javascript message <55ec33dc-ef70-4ef1-a102-5ac18a04d4b4@s5
> 0g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:23:32, lorlarz
>
> >Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years. I am
> >a
> >Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform (2000) and am a
> >Microsoft
> >Certified ASP.NET programmer.
>
> Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
> quality and (maybe) learn from it.
>
> It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.
>
> --
> news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
> <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
> <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
If you look earlier in this very thread there are links to my actual
javascript applications -- something apparently almost no one but me
writes.
While mine may not be sophisicated, know that I work completely alone
& at least I
do applications in JS. When are the rest of you going to get with
that program,
and start _and_ thus quit being script kiddies and giving javascript,
the world's
best programming language, a bad name??
kangax
>
> > Just stop reading books, which scope you can't or won't understand.
> > Resort to Resig's alternatives.
>
> > Gregor
>
> > --http://photo.gregorkofler.at:::Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
>
> to
> read 100 pages and think you know something. You could hardly make a
> single decent
> interactive JS program appear in a browser with what is in that book
> (and perhaps
> couldn't). Yet, somehow Crockford claims to cover the "best parts"!
> What a joke.
>
> How are you going to
> effectively and efficiently change the user interface? Crcokford does
> not
> help even the slightest bit here, though this is a major issue (just
> perhaps not
> one pat enough for crabby Crockford's taste). About 10 good books
> Crockford
> shows no respect for are the only sources to learn anything about
> this,
> including any principles of good coding in this area. He disrespects
> the
> hard work of a decade of hard-working book writers -- all people I
> read and
> learned greatly from (though admittedly many of the books were in some
> ways "bad"
> and often read like encyclopedias). But, Crockford's book is bad
> because it is so
> incomplete and its examples covering only a small subset of the
> practical functions
> in Javascript. Really good books show really good programs (at least
> some) and they
> actually appear in your browser. Crockford has written just another
> very bad book,
> from this perspective. CSS/DOM: Do the Crockfordians forget is
> exists or that
> there are many good/bad practices in dealing in this area??
>
> Crockford's book (to be useful) really assumes you know at least many
> many
> times as much about JavaScript than is in the book. Crockford's
> abstract
> examples do not deal with much of the JavaScript a JavaScript
> programmer uses.
> Places where we need to have principles and best practices clarified.
> CSS/DOM
>
> Crockford is good in his small limited area. I learned from him and I
> value
> that learning. But the conceit of Crockford and disparaging other
> books, when '
> he writes just one that is outrageous limited and incomplete makes me
> think he is an
> old foggie.
Another VK. *sigh*
--
kangax
Laurent vilday
> Dr J R Stockton :
>> lorlarz :
>>
>>> Not only hsve I been making JavaScript Programs for ten years.
ROFLMAO. That's a lie, anyway, who cares ?
>> Please give URLs for some of your work, so that we may assess its
>> quality and (maybe) learn from it.
>
> If you look earlier in this very thread there are links to my actual
> javascript applications -- something apparently almost no one but me
> writes.
ROFLMAO bis. Of course nobody else would have wrote such crap. Are you
really serious when you show the group thoses crapy .. hurm... stuff ?
Let's take your first example and get a real good laugh, would you ? You
looking for it since a long time after all. So, well, let me get a bit
nasty with your ugly code, if it can help you shut up.
<http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html>
For a start, you DTD is not valid, and even if it was valid, your
document is far away from being a valid HTML 4.01 strict. Real
developper know he *HAS* to correctly validate his document before
trying to add some JavaScript behaviour on it. Especially when they do
JavaScript since 10 years as you claiming. After 10 years of JavaScript
you should know that, and more important you should never have shown
experts (yeah, even if I dislike some here, experts are here) your ugly
stuff.
But let's see the JS, HTML is OT here. And since you doing JS for so
many times, you don't need to be pinpointed to each HTML errors, you
will fix this simple HTML quicky, I have no doubt. Mwarff.
<http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/matchingb.js>
OMG. Nope, finally I will let this awfull crap rot alone in hell. It is
in top position for being one of the worst JavaScript I have seen so
far. Can't be quickly fixed, it needs a rewrite from scratch, but from
someone knowing what he is doing. You don't know.
Anyway, looks like you should use some JSLint goodness. Probably it is
time for you to start learning the "JavaScript Good Parts".
> While mine may not be sophisicated, know that I work completely alone
> & at least I
> do applications in JS. When are the rest of you going to get with
> that program,
Don't need to compare anything to your "scripts", you will loose for
sure. My cock is MUCH bigger than yours of course. Blah Blah Blah.
> and start _and_ thus quit being script kiddies and giving javascript,
> the world's
> best programming language, a bad name??
Nice Troll, and you get fed by everyone here. You are trully a good
troll. Congrats.
--
laurent
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> Crockford is good in his small limited area. I learned from him and I
>> value that learning. But the conceit of Crockford and disparaging
>> other books, when ' he writes just one that is outrageous limited and
>> incomplete makes me think he is an old foggie.
>
> Another VK. *sigh*
Yes, indeed. Please do not feed the troll. Thanks in advance.
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>
lorlarz
So I did not put a standard one line at the top of the html. I should
just
copy and paste that line from another of my JS programs, maybe from
my JARS.COM well-reviewed JAVASCRIPT ***PROGRAM****,
http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm
(rated 950 out of 1000 and in the top 5% of jars.com listed JS
programs).
Otherwise, laurent, your critcisms of the script are unclear and
unsubstantiated
(JUST WHINING, WITH NO SPECIFICATION OF ANY PROBLEMS). I think you
are
just full of crap. A pretender, as SO MANY SCRIPT KIDDIES ARE.
Fact is, I do PROGRAMS IN JAVASCRIPT, where a client/user goes
through
several rational steps to get a result, all just in JavaScript AND
where it is a purely javascript program. There are apparently
approximately
ONE programmer in the world who does JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS.
Let's contemplate a definition:
You have a user working with a JavaScript PROGRAM when they are
doing stuff continuously in Javascript from
start to result with several significant steps along the way -- that
is a
program.
One will NOT fully appreciate the "good parts" of JS and application
of
principles to the use of JavaScript DOM walking and creation and
manipulation
functions _and_ the CSS manipulation JS functions (and doing it
all in the best ways) UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY WRITE PROGRAMS.
I SEEM TO BE ABOUT THE ONLY ONE DOING THIS.
ALL the rest (** Crockford, NOTWITHSTANDING **) is just script kiddie
stuff.
If you want to show credentials, that you are NOT just a script
kiddie,
provide links to your JavaScript PROGRAMS. Otherwise you whiners can
shut the hell up, because you do not know what you are talking
about!!!
You will not know all the "good parts" of JavaScript until you make
JavaScript PROGRAMS for the browsers.
SHOW YOUR STUFF, WE ALL SHOULD ASSUME YOU ARE A SCRIPT KIDDIE, making
the LEAST
of the great JavaSript language.
IN FACT:
I have yet to see a PROGRAM in JavaScript from Crockford and if he is
just a script kiddie, he is not qualified to determine "the good
parts"
of the JavaScript language. PERIOD. It matters little how smart he
is or
what he likes. (And if he does not realize this, he is an ass.)
lorlarz
wrote:
You know what a troll really is. It is a person who complains about
something with no specifics and says bad things without backing them
up at all, like laurent. Nobody knows what he is talking about and
what
he might be looking for. There is no evidence he is not just a lying
pretender.
I do not do that crap. I am saying I have seen NO evidence that
Crockford
makes JavaScript PROGRAMS and without that experience he lacks the
experience with major functions (relating to the DOM and CSS) and
very likely fails to KNOW the best principles here and many of the
"good parts" of JavaScript. He has the JSLint program, I know. But
what
JS programs for normal users with UIs and involving changes in the
UI has he made? LET'S SEE THEM. I DON'T MIND BEING WRONG.
Now, while it is impossible to know what would content laurent,
I would be happy to see some evidence of JS programs all in
Javascript
for regular people, using a UI in the browser.
Without such a demonstration, all will realize that IT IS LIKELY that
Crockford does NOT know all the "good parts" of JavaScript.
And, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
ANYBODY'S JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS -- PLEASE!!!
Dr J R Stockton
2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:39:11, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
>Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
>history,
>if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY designed
>to be
>independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards NOTWITHSTANDING.
>
(A) Please do not paste text wrapped at a wider margin into Google; it
becomes tiresome to read. Either wrap your material narrower, or do not
wrap it before pasting.
(B) JavaScript is independent of the DOM; read ISO/IEC 16262, and you
will see that it is DOM-dependent. JavaScript is what the international
standard says, after allowing for any errata. What JavaScript was when
*first* written is not relevant here. History is past.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Dr J R Stockton
<xaxi0+JM...@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Tue, 19
Aug 2008 19:53:00, John G Harris <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> posted:
>The algorithms in Knuth's famous books are written in a programming
>language that won't run in any real computer. Are you complaining about
>that as well ?
That suggests that you may have ready access to the books. If so, it
would be interesting to know what he has for the Date of Easter Sunday -
and what authority he gets his definition from!
My <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/estrdate.htm> ff. will, if
desired, indicate why.
Here's a thought. The Calendar Act of 1751, as passed, applies to
Britain and Colonies (excluding the AU/NZ area?). It was presumably
inherited by the US Republic in 1776. Constitutionally, the US can make
no law regarding an establishment of religion. Does that provision
annihilate the Act there, in which case they should be using the Julian
Calendar? Or does that provision render the Act immutable, except by
Constitutional Amendment?
This E-address is confidential, but ends up in Turnpike.
Regards,
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Bart Van der Donck
> Are these programs?:
>
> http://mynichecomputing.com/ReadIt/translateT.html
> http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm
> http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
> http://mynichecomputing.com/digitallearning/yourOwn.htm
> http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/
>
> Yes, they are. Programs a person can actually run in a browser
> and show something and do something and that people can use.
It must be great to live under such simple truths. Why are there 221
errors in your homepage then ? Trying to set an Olympic record ? :)
You should learn about basic markup first, like e.g. http://validator.w3.org.
Happy coding!
--
Bart
Gregor Kofler
> You know what a troll really is.
Right. Lorlarz is. No wait you're perhaps too much of an idiot to
qualify as real troll. An idiot who can't read. Otherwise...
> I do not do that crap. I am saying I have seen NO evidence that
> Crockford
> makes JavaScript PROGRAMS
...you would have noticed my list of useful programs by Crockford.
> experience with major functions (relating to the DOM and CSS) and
> very likely fails to KNOW the best principles here and many of the
> "good parts" of JavaScript. He has the JSLint program, I know. But
> what
> JS programs for normal users with UIs and involving changes in the
> UI has he made? LET'S SEE THEM. I DON'T MIND BEING WRONG.
IIRC there's even a video on YUI theater with him about the DOMs and
their peculiarities. But it's for programmers and therefore clearly not
suited for you.
> And, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
> ANYBODY'S JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS -- PLEASE!!!
Now, that's easy. Even for you. Depending on your browser you'll have a
menu entry labeled "show page source". Activate it. Here you go... (or
perhaps not.)
On second thought I have to admit I was wrong: You are a troll - a
better one than VK ever was. Sorry for feeding you. Won't happen again.
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
lorlarz
> lorlarz meinte:
>
> > You know what a troll really is.
>
> Right. Lorlarz is. No wait you're perhaps too much of an idiot to
> qualify as real troll. An idiot who can't read. Otherwise...
>
> > I do not do that crap. I am saying I have seen NO evidence that
> > Crockford
> > makes JavaScript PROGRAMS
>
> ...you would have noticed my list of useful programs by Crockford.
I never saw any list of Crockford's JavaScript Programs (this is to
say:
applications). I have seen and enjoyed all his videos (though his
debilitating
conceit shows through there as well, and is almost certainly a
handicap for him,
even personally in his work).
>
> > experience with major functions (relating to the DOM and CSS) and
> > very likely fails to KNOW the best principles here and many of the
> > "good parts" of JavaScript. He has the JSLint program, I know. But
> > what
> > JS programs for normal users with UIs and involving changes in the
> > UI has he made? LET'S SEE THEM. I DON'T MIND BEING WRONG.
>
> IIRC there's even a video on YUI theater with him about the DOMs and
> their peculiarities. But it's for programmers and therefore clearly not
> suited for you.
Saw them all and understood them all. BUT, STILL: I have yet to see a
web app
on a web page by Crockford, other than the inert code cruncher, JSLint
--
something I do use, but do NOT pay attention to all matters relating
to style.
>
> > And, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
> > ANYBODY'S JAVASCRIPT PROGRAMS -- PLEASE!!!
>
> Now, that's easy. Even for you. Depending on your browser you'll have a
> menu entry labeled "show page source". Activate it. Here you go... (or
> perhaps not.)
Javascript snippets done by script kiddies do NOT constitute what I
(or anyone else) would call a program (or application). I gave
a definition of sorts of a JavaScript PROGRAM that most would
both understand and agree with a few posts back.
>
> On second thought I have to admit I was wrong: You are a troll - a
> better one than VK ever was. Sorry for feeding you. Won't happen again.
You can't help yourself. You have to defend irrationally.
>
> --http://photo.gregorkofler.at::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografiehttp://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiesehttp://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
lorlarz
> Happy coding!
>
> --
> Bart
Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and MS
or
of the guy I got the template of. I would never make that many
errors.
But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
(applications),
if anyone knows what they are. I would love to see them and discuss
them.
Does this ever happen here or are just nerdy things all that goes on?
lorlarz
> In comp.lang.javascript message <8225ddf4-dc13-4c43-a89d-7b38db28f10d@j2
> 2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:39:11, lorlarz
>
>
>
> >And, finally (with respect to your material quoted below):
> >Javascript's MAIN use is for use in the web browsers (check your
> >history,
> >if you are unclear about this). The language was in NO WAY designed
> >to be
> >independent of the DOM, etc. ECMA standards NOTWITHSTANDING.
>
> (A) Please do not paste text wrapped at a wider margin into Google; it
> becomes tiresome to read. Either wrap your material narrower, or do not
> wrap it before pasting.
>
> (B) JavaScript is independent of the DOM; read ISO/IEC 16262, and you
> will see that it is DOM-dependent. JavaScript is what the international
> standard says, after allowing for any errata. What JavaScript was when
> *first* written is not relevant here. History is past.
>
> --
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
> Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
> Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
I do understand that JavaScript can be used independently of the DOM.
I personally am interested in JavaScript programs (applications) that
dynamically interact with DOMs, though. In short, the area
JavaScript was made for, yet still is rarely, rarely used to
its capacity in. Also, although JavaScript CAN be used
independently of the DOM, many of its functions are for DOM
manipulation; thus, to KNOW JavaScript is to also know these
functions. Otherwise perhaps you should say you are discussing
NERD's-creepy-limited-unexciting-bonehead javascript,
to make it clear you are not talking about all of the javascript
language.
By the way: Which line above is of the correct length?
Bart Van der Donck
> On Aug 20, 1:19 pm, Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>
>> Why are there 221 errors in your homepage then ?
>
> Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and
> MS or of the guy I got the template of.
You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
right ?
> I would never make that many errors.
Ah. Let's take one of your own pages then:
http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/ gives only 43 errors and 27
warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.
> But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
> (applications), if anyone knows what they are.
Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
code than you.
--
Bart
lorlarz
> On Aug 19, 6:30 am, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
.
>
> Peter
Peter, Please keep your communications with me on the newsgroup. No
email please.
Michael Wojcik
> In comp.lang.javascript message
> <xaxi0+JM...@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Tue, 19
> Aug 2008 19:53:00, John G Harris <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>> The algorithms in Knuth's famous books are written in a programming
>> language that won't run in any real computer. Are you complaining about
>> that as well ?
>
> That suggests that you may have ready access to the books. If so, it
> would be interesting to know what he has for the Date of Easter Sunday -
> and what authority he gets his definition from!
Knuth, TAoCP, vol 1 (Fundamental Algorithms), 3rd ed, 1.3.2 ex 14 is
the Easter Sunday problem. The text begins:
The following algorithm, due to the Neapolitan astronomer
Aloysius Lilius and the German Jesuit mathematician
Christopher Clavius in the late 16th century, is used by
most Western churches to determine the date of Easter
Sunday for any year after 1582. (159)
Knuth then describes the algorithm, which is labeled "Algorithm E
(Date of Easter)".
So, as your site suggests, this is the Lilius / Clavius algorithm, and
Knuth doesn't appear to provide any more specific citation for it.
Michael Wojcik
>
> Without wishing to get embroiled in the above argument, can you indicate
> why I might want to use JavaScript *not* in a browser (I mean for other
> than say teaching purposes)?
Perhaps because it's a relatively clean, dynamic, fairly expressive
language with decent OO and functional features? It's well-documented
and widely used. It has desirable high-level constructs like decent
string manipulation. There are extensive libraries available for
various tasks.
Each of those claims has its challengers; there are those, for
example, who feel prototype-based OO simply isn't suitable for
large-scale development. But ECMAScript does enough well enough to be
worth considering. It isn't, say, OCaml, but it doesn't suffer from
OCaml's worst weaknesses, either.
> Why might I use it for general purpose
> scripting instead of, say, PHP?
Because PHP is a ghastly mess of features torn from other languages
and libraries mashed together without rhyme or reason? I know *I've*
written some fairly decent PHP code, and I'm sure plenty of other
people have to; but the language certainly doesn't encourage it.
That's not really the point, though. A better question is: in a
particular situation where ECMAScript is one option, how does it
measure up against other options? If you're writing backend scripts
for a site hosted by a provider who offers PHP but not server-side
ECMAScript, then PHP would be the reasonable choice. On the other
hand, if you're writing admin scripts to run under Windows Scripting
Host, I think JScript looks like a much nicer choice than VBScript.
And if I'm writing a widget to run under Konfabulator (the engine for
Yahoo! Widgets, which I happen to prefer over the competing
desktop-trinket environments), then I'd be using Javascript, because
that's pretty much my only choice. Of course, Konfabulator is in many
ways a browser-like environment (DOM, CSS, etc).
Another reason is that ECMAScript's popularity makes it a decent
choice for demonstrating code, particularly to non-experts. I gave a
presentation at this year's Computers & Writing conference where I
demonstrated some textual-analysis software; I wrote it in ECMAScript,
partly because I could show snippets and know that many people in the
audience had at least some familiarity with the language. Something
like OCaml would have been Greek to them. (Worse, actually, since many
were rhetoricians with some knowledge of Greek.)
Michael Wojcik
> Michael Wojcik <mwo...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
>>
>>> It makes perfect sense. Just like the C language doesn't provide I/O.
>> This is incorrect. The C standard includes the standard library, which
>> includes stdio. See ISO 9899:1999.
>
> It was my understanding the the standard library is mostly(?) optional
> (it's not needed when you're writing an OS in C for example). I can't
> find the relevant keywords to google so I may be mistaken about that.
True, I simplified a bit. The C language includes the standard
library; however, only "hosted" implementations are required to
provide all of it. "Freestanding" implementations can leave most of it
out.
However, even for a freestanding implementation, the standard library
is still part of C; it's just an optional part.
> Just the fact that you can replace the standard library probably
> counts for something, anyway.
Well, technically, you can't. More specifically, defining any function
that's part of the standard library produces Undefined Behavior. Many
implementations go ahead and define the behavior in a way that does
let you replace the standard library; but that's an extension to the
language.
But the basic point stands - many languages specify their core
features, and let other standards (or proprietary inventions) define
higher-tier features. Just another case of modularization.
Another example might be network protocol stacks. TCP/IP is nicely
modularized; the IP standard says nothing about conversations
(provided by TCP) or even generalized datagrams (provided by UDP),
much less application protocols (Telnet, FTP, HTTP, etc). Those are
specified by higher-level standards. Contrast that with SNA, where
low-level stuff (like RH and RU definitions) are contaminated with all
sorts of special-purpose bits for high-level operations (like
authentication and routing).
If you want to learn how TCP works - really works, so you know how to
avoid things like Nagle / Delayed ACK interaction - you don't want to
start by learning about HTTP. And if you want to learn how ECMAScript
works, learning about the DOM isn't going to help.
> I still have a project on the back burner to write an ecmascript
> interpreter in Common Lisp. Probably not relevant either. :-)
That could be fun. (I'd be inclined to use Scheme, as that's the LISP
variant I'm most conversant in, but maybe this sort of project would
be a good reason to learn CLOS.)
Dr J R Stockton
7g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:59:06, lorlarz
<lor...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and MS
>or
>of the guy I got the template of. I would never make that many
>errors.
You are responsible for publishing them on the Web, however; and you are
responsible for choosing the tools you use and the sources that you
copy.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
lorlarz
> lorlarz wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 1:19 pm, Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>
> >> Why are there 221 errors in your homepage then ?
>
> > Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and
> > MS or of the guy I got the template of.
>
> You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
> You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
> right ?
>
> > I would never make that many errors.
>
> warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.
>
> > But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
> > (applications), if anyone knows what they are.
>
> Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
> code than you.
>
> --
> Bart
Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code without ever
writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
all that counts for NOTHING.
lorlarz
> In comp.lang.javascript message <927e6344-a5a4-4cd2-9c76-a1e9c264e558@d7
> 7g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:59:06, lorlarz
>
>
>
> >Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and MS
> >or
> >of the guy I got the template of. I would never make that many
> >errors.
>
> You are responsible for publishing them on the Web, however; and you are
> responsible for choosing the tools you use and the sources that you
> copy.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
> Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
> No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
Hey, the template was well-reviewed and so was Microsoft's ASP.NET
2.0 .
I will not take responsibility for all that, and do find the
situation
satisfactory. Everything works for everyone. I don't break anything
do I??
I don't ruin your relationship with your loved ones. Do I?
Seems ones "moral compass" is a bit of a joke -- YOURS!
lorlarz
> On Aug 20, 2:31 pm, Bart Van der Donck <b...@nijlen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > lorlarz wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 1:19 pm, Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>
> > >> Why are there 221 errors in your homepage then ?
>
> > > Errors in html on the home page are either the fault of ASP.NET and
> > > MS or of the guy I got the template of.
>
> > You're not even sure about that ? That's worse than making 221 errors.
> > You don't seem to bother to give much credibility to your statements,
> > right ?
>
> > > I would never make that many errors.
>
> > warnings indeed, besides crashing my Internet Explorer.
>
> > > But, let's confine our discussion to JavaScript PROGRAMS
> > > (applications), if anyone knows what they are.
>
> > Rest assured that many regulars in this group have written far more
> > code than you.
>
> > --
> > Bart
>
> Script Kiddies can write a lot of stupid simple code without ever
> writing a useful or interesting JavaScript Application and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, _again_ I forgot to add:
The fact that so much garbage is done is because that
CRAP is all "the man" will pay you for an many
do not have enough "balls" or grit to do anything
decent on your own without the cash.
Jeremy J Starcher
> Some day when YOU, like me, start making actual full-blown Javascript
> applications and stop being script kiddies, you will appreciate this point.
> People: start making Javascript Applications!!
Full blown applications in Javascript?
Like a compiler and virtual machine?
Like a web-front to an online store? (Complete with full non-js fallback?)
Or perhaps the data editor, including an image map generator?
And that is just the stuff that runs in the browser.
I have an entire interactive parts catalogue lookup and cross reference
written in Javascript and that does NOT run in a web browser, though it does
use Microsoft's IE object as its GUI.
lorlarz
I invite you to share one or more of your applications, with well-
commented code
or explanatory text so many can learn from your techniques, design
patterns, etc.
Please contribute to our knowledge: http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps
Jeremy J Starcher
Considering that I *HAVE* already shared the compiler, in this group, it
is free for the examination by anyone who chooses to do so.
I must respectfully turn down your offer to join a google-groups.
http://mopedepot.com/jjs/mote/motevm/mote.html
While I am proud of it, and to my knowledge it does not contain any
glaringly bad code, there are a few areas that could be re-written based
upon what I've learned about Javascript style in the mean time.
(In particular, It uses too many new Array() instead of []'s.)
6188 lines total, though about 300 of those are libraries I borrowed.