Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag drop activitybuilder)

Reply
Thread Tools

Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag drop activitybuilder)

 
 
lorlarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag drop activity
builder)

Once you totally remove JS from a web page, and learn the shortcuts
and efficiencies
provided by a library like jQuery, one realizes that one can build
generalized builders
of JavaScript applications. One example is:

Universal Automatic Drag-and-Drop Activity Builder (builds the code
and web page)
http://mynichecomputing.com/GuideInf...niversalDD.htm

Other examples of builders are on mynichecomputing.com
A couple others are:

http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu...nuBuilder3.htm
and

http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/:
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Henry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
On Jul 7, 4:09 pm, lorlarz wrote:
> Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag
> drop activity builder)
>
> Once you totally remove JS from a web page, and learn the
> shortcuts and efficiencies provided by a library like jQuery, ...

<snip>

LOL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Erwin Moller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008

Henry schreef:
> On Jul 7, 4:09 pm, lorlarz wrote:
>> Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag
>> drop activity builder)
>>
>> Once you totally remove JS from a web page, and learn the
>> shortcuts and efficiencies provided by a library like jQuery, ...

> <snip>
>
> LOL


wow, this is impressive stupid spam indeed....
They get more ignorant by the day.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
 
Reply With Quote
 
lorlarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
Obviously what is meant is :
"Once you totally remove JS from the body of a web page ..."

(Otherwise Builders save everyone a lot of work, so all should be
happy.)

While I am at it, a link correction:

http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/


On Jul 7, 10:09*am, lorlarz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Unobtrusive JavaScript leads to BUILDERS (e.g. drag drop activity
> builder)
>
> Once you totally remove JS from a web page, and learn the shortcuts
> and efficiencies
> provided by a library like jQuery, one realizes that one can build
> generalized builders
> of JavaScript applications. *One example is:
>

[snip]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
lorlarz wrote:
> Obviously what is meant is :
> "Once you totally remove JS from the body of a web page ..."


You will have a hell of a time debugging the mess that you made. And you
can never be sure if the code was attached, because of different DOMs.

"Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's idea.

> (Otherwise Builders save everyone a lot of work, so all should be
> happy.)
>
> While I am at it, a link correction:
>
> [...]
>
> [top post]


No, thanks.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
lorlarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
Regarding the code used in the page which *is* the drag/drop activity
the user of the
Builder makes:

The small bit of code I add (beyond the core jQuery library and
established jQuery plugin library I use) does well in http://www.jslint.com/
-- no
stricter standard than that! And:

jQuery (esp. just the core) is just good JavaScript -- pure
Javascript,
providing utility functions and shortcuts; the prototypes of objects
are not messed with at all , like with prototype.js . Perhaps you
should research
jQuery a bit more.

All jQuery and its extensions or "plugins" are just pure JavaScript,
with NO manipulation
of prototypes.




On Jul 7, 12:21*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
> > Obviously what is meant is :
> > "Once you totally remove JS from the body of a web page ..."

>
> You will have a hell of a time debugging the mess that you made. *And you
> can never be sure if the code was attached, because of different DOMs.
>
> "Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's idea.
>
> > (Otherwise Builders save everyone a lot of work, so all should be
> > happy.)

>
> > While I am at it, a link correction:

>
> > [...]

>
> > [top post]

>
> No, thanks.
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
> who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
> the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
> * -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$(E-Mail Removed)>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2008
lorlarz wrote:
> The small bit of code I add (beyond the core jQuery library and
> established jQuery plugin library I use) does well in http://www.jslint.com/
> -- no
> stricter standard than that!


Code that is syntactically correct does not need to make sense.

> And:
>
> jQuery (esp. just the core) is just good JavaScript


It is no doubt written in for ECMAScript implementations, but it is written
in a rather clueless way.

> -- pure Javascript,


You don't know what you are talking about. Go away.

> [...] Perhaps you should research jQuery a bit more.


No thanks, we have had our share of discussing that and the utter
incompetence regarding Web development of its author already.
<http://jibbering.com/faq/> tells you all about what you have been missing,
which BTW is considerably more than you managed to observe to date.

> All jQuery and its extensions or "plugins" are just pure JavaScript,
> with NO manipulation
> of prototypes.
>
> [...]


Will you please stop top-posting?


Score adjusted

PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
 
Reply With Quote
 
lorlarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2008
Thomas

Let me again try to reply (my first attempt apparently failed). I use
only a small javascript
of my own, mynewtooltip.js , which passes inspection well in JSLint
(http://www.jslint.com/) --
a stringent test.
The rest of the code is pure JavaScript in the sense that it is from
the jQuery library, which is
only pure JavaScript with NO prototypes meddled with EVER. (My
program uses only the jQuery Core ( which
is very well tested and respected) and one of the more established
extensions or "plugins" (also pure
JavaScript with NO prototype meddling).

All the crossplatform checks this code goes through makes it very
likely that any major browsers will
run it. Individual idiosyncratic code is much more suspect.

-- Larz

n Jul 7, 12:21*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
> > Obviously what is meant is :
> > "Once you totally remove JS from the body of a web page ..."

>
> You will have a hell of a time debugging the mess that you made. *And you
> can never be sure if the code was attached, because of different DOMs.
>
> "Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's idea.
>
> > (Otherwise Builders save everyone a lot of work, so all should be
> > happy.)

>
> > While I am at it, a link correction:

>
> > [...]

>
> > [top post]

>
> No, thanks.
>
> PointedEars
> --
> Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
> who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
> the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
> * -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$(E-Mail Removed)>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregor Kofler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2008
lorlarz meinte:
> Thomas
>
> Let me again try to reply (my first attempt apparently failed). I use
> only a small javascript
> of my own, mynewtooltip.js , which passes inspection well in JSLint
> (http://www.jslint.com/) --
> a stringent test.
> The rest of the code is pure JavaScript in the sense that it is from
> the jQuery library, which is
> only pure JavaScript with NO prototypes meddled with EVER.


What's wrong with augmenting prototypes? Except that one should do it
properly.

> (My program uses only the jQuery Core ( which
> is very well tested and respected)


There have beeen plenty of threads in this NG proving the opposite. For
a start:

<http://groups.google.at/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/2072e63631688fc4/d63033d712a89e02>

> and one of the more established
> extensions or "plugins" (also pure
> JavaScript with NO prototype meddling).


And that says what about the code quality? IE6 is still the browser with
the largest market share...

Gregor


--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur fr den alpinen Raum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Krukow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2008
On Jul 7, 1:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> "Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's idea.


Hello PointedEars,

Can you elaborate on this comment?


Kind Regards,
- Karl
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Share your views on unobtrusive javascript Animesh K Javascript 23 07-30-2007 10:51 PM
Unobtrusive method for image resizing? Animesh K Javascript 4 07-27-2007 02:54 AM
unobtrusive javascript to handle drop down/fold out menu pantagruel Javascript 2 08-10-2005 10:37 AM
[ANN] deplate 0.7.1 - A tool for converting documents written inan unobtrusive, wiki-like markup to LaTeX, HTML, "HTML slides", or DocBook Thomas Ruby 0 03-03-2005 06:36 PM



Advertisments