Clear all optgroups and options from a select list

[Brian D]

I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

Thanks
BrianD

[darwinist]

Brian D wrote:

I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

Thanks
BrianD

You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

<script>
// delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}
// Get a reference to an object by id:
function $(id){return document.getElementById(id);}
// Delete an object by id:
function $del(id){x=$(id); del(x);}
</script>

hope this helps

---
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html
(lots of working examples)

[RobG]

Brian D wrote:

I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

The usual way:

var sel = document.form1.itemcross;
while (sel.firstChild) {
sel.removeChild(sel.firstChild);
}
--
Rob

[RobG]

darwinist wrote:

Brian D wrote:

I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

Thanks
BrianD

You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
either an ID or a NAME attribute.

<script>

Please don't recommend using invalid HTML. Do it in your own library
if you wish, but don't encourage it here.

// delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}

The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.
--
Rob

[darwinist]

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

Brian D wrote:

I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by
>
document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;
>
The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?
>
Thanks
BrianD

You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
either an ID or a NAME attribute.

<script>

Please don't recommend using invalid HTML. Do it in your own library
if you wish, but don't encourage it here.

// delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}

The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.

Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like any other?
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_optgroup.asp

>
--
Rob

[RobG]

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

>darwinist wrote:

>>Brian D wrote:
I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

[...]

>>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
either an ID or a NAME attribute.

[...]

>> // delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}

The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.

Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like any other?

Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option an ID, then
remove them one by one using getElementById. That is not a reasonable
method given the question.
--
Rob

[darwinist]

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

Brian D wrote:
I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
the curent option list by

document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;

The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
rid of the optgroups?

[...]

>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:
The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
either an ID or a NAME attribute.

[...]

> // delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}
The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.

Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like any other?

Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option an ID, then
remove them one by one using getElementById. That is not a reasonable
method given the question.

I said "or a reference to it", and gave commented, working examples of
how to deal with both. What's your problem?

Javascript's native methods use a lot of codespace for common things
that don't take much time. This rigid structure is important to the
integrity of the platform but when you are putting it to any actual
purpose you need short, clear, purpose-specific functions that reflect
what your application, not the language, is doing.

For example:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Feel free to criticise or contribute.

>
--
Rob

[RobG]

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:
>darwinist wrote:
>>
>>Brian D wrote:
>>>I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
>>>previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
>>>the curent option list by
>>>>
>>>document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;
>>>>
>>>The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
>>>rid of the optgroups?

[...]

>>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:
>The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
>either an ID or a NAME attribute.

[...]

>> // delete an object by reference
>> function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}
>The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.
>
Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like any other?

Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option an ID, then
remove them one by one using getElementById. That is not a reasonable
method given the question.

I said "or a reference to it", and gave commented, working examples of
how to deal with both. What's your problem?

The OP already had a reference to the select element and just wanted to
remove all the child nodes. To use your proposed solution, the OP
would have looped through all the child nodes, then called the 'del'
function which used the child node to reference back to the parent node
to delete itself.

That may have lead to a few characters less in the for loop, but also
an extra unnecessary function object plus an extra couple of loop-ups
for parent and child nodes. So appart from obfuscation, you also make
the whole process less efficient.

The function I posted was perhaps 3 lines of code and could (had the OP
wanted) be wrapped in a separate 'deleteAllChildNodes' function. I
think it actually required fewer keystrokes, not that it matters.

Incidentally, the fastest way I've seen to delete all the child nodes
of an element is to replace it with a shallow clone of itself.
Unfortunately, a few scarce browsers don't like doing that with all
elements so it's not useful on the web. But for an intranet... ;-)

Javascript's native methods use a lot of codespace for common things
that don't take much time. This rigid structure is important to the
integrity of the platform but when you are putting it to any actual
purpose you need short, clear, purpose-specific functions that reflect
what your application, not the language, is doing.

I don't see how adding an ID to every element you want to delete makes
life easier. It also suggests managing all those IDs and some
algorithm to work out which ones are of interest.

Creating single-line functions purely for the sake of reducing the
number of keystrokes for a programmer to type a method will not lead to
any great advantage in reducing software development times (that
discussion is being hosted in another thread I think). If it did, such
widely used environments as VB wouldn't have names that approach the
length of short sentences (please don't assume I think VB is some
paragon of programming excellence - it's just an example) and brevity
would be a fundamental principle of coding standards everywhere. It
isn't - clarity is.

If you've ever tried to maintain some one else's code (say C or C++)
you'd know why.
--
Rob

[Richard Cornford]

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

>darwinist wrote:

>>>darwinist wrote:

<snip>

>>>>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

<snip>

>>Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like
any other?

Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option
an ID, then remove them one by one using getElementById.
That is not a reasonable method given the question.

I said "or a reference to it", and gave commented, working
examples of how to deal with both. What's your problem?

The example you gave was an example that required each optgroup element
to have and ID, that would be the wrong thing to do.

<snip>

For example:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Feel free to criticise

You have never actually said what this thing is supposed to be for. It
looks like it is indented to be the bases for an in-browser windowing
system for web-applications. It doesn't look capable enough for any
actual example of such, but I suppose could be extended for specific
applications. However, as it is only really suited for Mozilla/Gecko
browsers as it stands I don't see it being of much practical benefit in
a world where IE support is normally expected (and sometimes
sufficient).

or contribute.

You don't appear to be someone who takes advice, so anything approaching
collaboration is out of the question.

Richard.

[darwinist]

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:
RobG wrote:
darwinist wrote:
>
>Brian D wrote:
>>I have a multiple select list that is created dynamically based on a
>>previous selection on an asp page. The first thing I do is to clear
>>the curent option list by
>>>
>>document.form1.itemcross.length = 0;
>>>
>>The only problem is that it leaves the optgroups. How do I also get
>>rid of the optgroups?
>
[...]
>
>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:
The OP has already indicated how he's doing that, and may be using
either an ID or a NAME attribute.
>
[...]
>
> // delete an object by reference
> function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}
The OP is attempting to remove the child nodes, not the element itself.

Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like any other?
>
Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option an ID, then
remove them one by one using getElementById. That is not a reasonable
method given the question.

I said "or a reference to it", and gave commented, working examples of
how to deal with both. What's your problem?

The OP already had a reference to the select element and just wanted to
remove all the child nodes. To use your proposed solution, the OP
would have looped through all the child nodes, then called the 'del'
function which used the child node to reference back to the parent node
to delete itself.

That may have lead to a few characters less in the for loop, but also
an extra unnecessary function object plus an extra couple of loop-ups
for parent and child nodes. So appart from obfuscation, you also make
the whole process less efficient.

The function I posted was perhaps 3 lines of code and could (had the OP
wanted) be wrapped in a separate 'deleteAllChildNodes' function. I
think it actually required fewer keystrokes, not that it matters.

You're right to empty an object it's more efficient to have a function
that does just that, instead of a generic delete one and another loop
for every object you want to empty.

Incidentally, the fastest way I've seen to delete all the child nodes
of an element is to replace it with a shallow clone of itself.
Unfortunately, a few scarce browsers don't like doing that with all
elements so it's not useful on the web. But for an intranet... ;-)

Javascript's native methods use a lot of codespace for common things
that don't take much time. This rigid structure is important to the
integrity of the platform but when you are putting it to any actual
purpose you need short, clear, purpose-specific functions that reflect
what your application, not the language, is doing.

I don't see how adding an ID to every element you want to delete makes
life easier. It also suggests managing all those IDs and some
algorithm to work out which ones are of interest.

That was an argument for short single-word functions that have meaning
in the contenxt of a partiuclar application. The overuse of the ID tag
is just my ignorance of javascript and not related in any way.

Creating single-line functions purely for the sake of reducing the
number of keystrokes for a programmer to type a method will not lead to
any great advantage in reducing software development times (that
discussion is being hosted in another thread I think). If it did, such
widely used environments as VB wouldn't have names that approach the
length of short sentences (please don't assume I think VB is some
paragon of programming excellence - it's just an example) and brevity
would be a fundamental principle of coding standards everywhere. It
isn't - clarity is.

Brevity is not neutral with regards to clarity. Mashing a lot of words
together with hungarian notation isn't necessarily more clear than
single word sentences, but it is more precise for a framework or
toolkit. Using lots of convoluted code structures and peforming too
many operations in a single statement is also not clear, although it
may be brief.

Complete words, individual words, are what we read best, and how we
think.

If you've ever tried to maintain some one else's code (say C or C++)
you'd know why.

Funny you should mention it I've been doing precisely that for the last
few months.

>
--
Rob

[darwinist]

Richard Cornford wrote:

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:
darwinist wrote:

<snip>

>>>You need an id for the object or a reference to it:

<snip>

>Isn't an optgroup an element that you can remove like
any other?

Yes. Your response was essentially to give every option
an ID, then remove them one by one using getElementById.
That is not a reasonable method given the question.

I said "or a reference to it", and gave commented, working
examples of how to deal with both. What's your problem?

The example you gave was an example that required each optgroup element
to have and ID, that would be the wrong thing to do.

It did not require an ID, it required either an id or a reference,
(which was the first thing i said to the OP). The first actual example
I gave was:

// delete an object by reference
function del(element){element.parentNode.removeChild(elemen t);}
In case no id was present or necessary.

<snip>

For example:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Feel free to criticise

You have never actually said what this thing is supposed to be for.

It's to demonstrate all you need to know to start making your own
web-based desktop system, or any subset thereof (a windowed-based
application, for example). It's far from perfect but it includes all
basic functionality required, plus an "immediate" box, and a manual.

It
looks like it is indented to be the bases for an in-browser windowing
system for web-applications. It doesn't look capable enough for any
actual example of such,

Under Help->Examples there are several working examples for making
windows, making objects draggable, a hello world program, etc.

Also the windowing system itself works, as does the desktop.

but I suppose could be extended for specific
applications. However, as it is only really suited for Mozilla/Gecko
browsers as it stands

There isn't any browser-specific code, and although it's not coded to
an apparently well-known ie bug, it's fairly lightweight and quite
responsive in either major browser.

I don't see it being of much practical benefit in
a world where IE support is normally expected (and sometimes
sufficient).

It's meant as a free codebase. I've seen nothing really that does all
desktop-environment stuff in a short, free, clear fashion. Most is
heavy or proprietary, or both, and most try to reinvent the wheel.

or contribute.

You don't appear to be someone who takes advice, so anything approaching
collaboration is out of the question.

I appreciate your advice, even if you don't like what I do with it. I
happen to consider that what "works" is very important. Javsacript
specs are what browsers should implement, but actual browser support is
what programmers need to worry about.

It seems that moving windows around by reference rather than ID would
be a speed improvement and probably slightly less code, so you can
rest-assured my application will reflect this when I next have a play
with it.

I don't respond to authority though. Never have, never will (unless
you're paying me).

Richard.

[RobG]

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

[...]

Creating single-line functions purely for the sake of reducing the
number of keystrokes for a programmer to type a method will not lead to
any great advantage in reducing software development times (that
discussion is being hosted in another thread I think). If it did, such
widely used environments as VB wouldn't have names that approach the
length of short sentences (please don't assume I think VB is some
paragon of programming excellence - it's just an example) and brevity
would be a fundamental principle of coding standards everywhere. It
isn't - clarity is.

Brevity is not neutral with regards to clarity.

I did not say that brevity and clarity are mutually exclusive, but that
brevity does not infer clarity - e.g. jargon is great shorthand for
those 'in the know', but is greatly disliked for its ability to
confound.

Mashing a lot of words
together with hungarian notation isn't necessarily more clear than
single word sentences,

Yes, verbosity is just as bad - but I'm not promoting that either.

You may note that single word sentences only ever make sense in the
context of surrounding text. A programmer seeing your $make() function
would first need to look at the source to see what it does, only to
find that it is a simple wrapper for document.createElement.

If in fact $make() was say 100 lines of code, you then either need to
provide precise documentation to say what it does and doesn't do or
assume the programmer will know exactly that from reading the code.

The rub is that if the programmer can infer precisely what the code
does just by reading it, they likely have their own library or can
write a project-specific one that better suits their requirements. If
the programmer isn't that knowledgeable, they will likely misuse the
library (e.g. a recent post which asked 'why do I get this error on
line 1502 of prototype.js').

but it is more precise for a framework or
toolkit. Using lots of convoluted code structures and peforming too
many operations in a single statement is also not clear, although it
may be brief.

That is not an argument either way - obfuscated code is obfuscated
code, brevity (a weapon employed by obfuscation tools) is just as
obfuscatory as verbosity and 'tight' code.

Which is clearer:

dom_deleteElement();

or

$del();
I think most JavaScript programmers could say with reasonable certainty
what the first function does, but would be guessing about the second.
Very few would guess that the second *only* deletes DOM elements.

For the sake of a few extra characters for a programmer to type, the
code becomes much clearer. If code bulk is a serious problem, use a
minifier before sending code to the client.

The bottom line is that code for a project can nearly always be better
optimised for bulk by writing concise, project-specific code than
including 2,000 line libraries to save a few characters in function
calls.

Complete words, individual words, are what we read best, and how we
think.

I think you are crossing over into literary comprehension, which is a
field well outside the scope of this news group.

I don't think in sentences of one word, nor can I conceive that single
words (and occasionally abbreviated single words) are always sufficient
to describe the functionality of everything. What does $del() imply?
It means something to you because you have the context of the library
that you wrote it to fit into. As noted above, single work sentences
*only* make sense when taken in context with surrounding text.

Hello.
--
Rob

[darwinist]

RobG wrote:

darwinist wrote:

RobG wrote:

[...]

Creating single-line functions purely for the sake of reducing the
number of keystrokes for a programmer to type a method will not lead to
any great advantage in reducing software development times (that
discussion is being hosted in another thread I think). If it did, such
widely used environments as VB wouldn't have names that approach the
length of short sentences (please don't assume I think VB is some
paragon of programming excellence - it's just an example) and brevity
would be a fundamental principle of coding standards everywhere. It
isn't - clarity is.

Brevity is not neutral with regards to clarity.

I did not say that brevity and clarity are mutually exclusive, but that
brevity does not infer clarity - e.g. jargon is great shorthand for
those 'in the know', but is greatly disliked for its ability to
confound.

Mashing a lot of words
together with hungarian notation isn't necessarily more clear than
single word sentences,

Yes, verbosity is just as bad - but I'm not promoting that either.

You may note that single word sentences only ever make sense in the
context of surrounding text. A programmer seeing your $make() function
would first need to look at the source to see what it does, only to
find that it is a simple wrapper for document.createElement.

If in fact $make() was say 100 lines of code, you then either need to
provide precise documentation to say what it does and doesn't do or
assume the programmer will know exactly that from reading the code.

The rub is that if the programmer can infer precisely what the code
does just by reading it, they likely have their own library or can
write a project-specific one that better suits their requirements. If
the programmer isn't that knowledgeable, they will likely misuse the
library (e.g. a recent post which asked 'why do I get this error on
line 1502 of prototype.js').

but it is more precise for a framework or
toolkit. Using lots of convoluted code structures and peforming too
many operations in a single statement is also not clear, although it
may be brief.

That is not an argument either way - obfuscated code is obfuscated
code, brevity (a weapon employed by obfuscation tools) is just as
obfuscatory as verbosity and 'tight' code.

Which is clearer:

dom_deleteElement();

or

$del();
I think most JavaScript programmers could say with reasonable certainty
what the first function does, but would be guessing about the second.
Very few would guess that the second *only* deletes DOM elements.

They don't need to "guess". Function names are one part of their
description, but not the only one. Comments and context, for example
are two others. If they take arguments then they are another.

For the sake of a few extra characters for a programmer to type, the
code becomes much clearer. If code bulk is a serious problem, use a
minifier before sending code to the client.

The bottom line is that code for a project can nearly always be better
optimised for bulk by writing concise, project-specific code than
including 2,000 line libraries to save a few characters in function
calls.

I agree, but that doesn't mean you can't write concise project specific
code, that happens to include a library of common actions, with short
and simple names, even if some of them are just wrappers to more
verbose, platform-specific method calls.

My point is that separating the application from the language,
conceptually, is a good thing.

>

Complete words, individual words, are what we read best, and how we
think.

I think you are crossing over into literary comprehension, which is a
field well outside the scope of this news group.

I don't think in sentences of one word, nor can I conceive that single
words (and occasionally abbreviated single words) are always sufficient
to describe the functionality of everything.

Sorry I meant single word "functions" (or as few words as practicable).
Of course sentences need at least a verb and a noun, almost always.

What does $del() imply?
It means something to you because you have the context of the library
that you wrote it to fit into. As noted above, single work sentences
*only* make sense when taken in context with surrounding text.

Hello.
--
Rob

[Brian D]

RobG wrote:

>
The usual way:

var sel = document.form1.itemcross;
while (sel.firstChild) {
sel.removeChild(sel.firstChild);
}

RobG. Thanks! It was exactly what I needed!
-Brian

[Richard Cornford]

darwinist wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>The example you gave was an example that required each
optgroup element to have and ID, that would be the
wrong thing to do.

<snip>

So you did, sorry. Weren't we discussing the clarity/readability of
javascript source code recently?

<snip>

>>For example:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Feel free to criticise

You have never actually said what this thing is supposed to
be for.

It's to demonstrate all you need to know to start making
your own web-based desktop system, or any subset thereof
(a windowed-based application, for example).

Now there is a frightening notion. I didn't look at your actual code too
much, I just verified that it did have the serious memory leak I was
expecting on IE, did not address the select element issue, and that you
could not drag one window over the contents of another because the mouse
co-ordinates were not available in the containing frame (that is, it
failed on the three primary issues of an in browser 'windowing' system
in IE). I suspect that much else that would be useful in any actual
application would also be missing, such as an ability for code executing
in a 'window' to respond to window dragging, re-sizing, closing and
focusing (moving to the front) actions.

It's far from perfect but it includes all
basic functionality required, plus an "immediate"
box, and a manual.

>It looks like it is indented to be the bases for an
in-browser windowing system for web-applications. It
doesn't look capable enough for any actual example of
such,

Under Help->Examples there are several working examples
for making windows, making objects draggable, a hello
world program, etc.

There is quite a gap between 'hello world' and a web application
multi-facetted enough to warrant a windowing GUI.

Also the windowing system itself works, as does the
desktop.

>but I suppose could be extended for specific
applications. However, as it is only really suited
for Mozilla/Gecko browsers as it stands

There isn't any browser-specific code, and although it's
not coded to an apparently well-known ie bug,

At least two well known IE bugs, but the number doesn't matter as any
one is sufficient to make the result viable for use on Windows IE only
Intranets, or multi-browser Intranets that include IE (i.e. the actual
market) for as long as your "I'm not particularly interested in coding
to the bugs of a product whose manufacturers don't even pretend it's
good anymore" stands.

it's fairly lightweight and quite
responsive in either major browser.

Maybe as it stands, but an actual application would be expected to have
something going on in those windows, which is what will slow the total
down.

(Incidentally "either major browser" sounds like the 'both browsers'
attitude prevalent at the end of the last century.)

>I don't see it being of much practical benefit in
a world where IE support is normally expected (and
sometimes sufficient).

It's meant as a free codebase. I've seen nothing really
that does all desktop-environment stuff in a short, free,
clear fashion. Most is heavy or proprietary, or both, and
most try to reinvent the wheel.

There is the dilemma; if you attempt to anticipate and provide all that
an application may need the result will be 'heavy', and much of what is
included will be unnecessary in any real application, but so long as it
is omitted all you have is a demonstration that it is possible to drag
and re-size IFRAMEs in a container of some sort on a particular set of
browsers.

or contribute.

You don't appear to be someone who takes advice, so
anything approaching collaboration is out of the question.

I appreciate your advice, even if you don't like what I do
with it. I happen to consider that what "works" is very
important.

My long experience of people declaring that something "works" or
"doesn't work" on this group has diminished the significance of the
word. So many things "work", by some criteria or another, that 'works'
is barely the starting point for a choice of implementation strategies.

Much of the time people are declaring things to 'work' only because they
have not tested them vigorously/seriously. Indeed you don't seem to have
tried stressing your code much, as the two megabyte memory leak in IE
per window instance should have become evident once you had opened and
closed 100 windows or so.

Javsacript specs are what browsers should implement, but
actual browser support is what programmers need to worry
about.

The two are far too interrelated for the specifications to be dismissed
in favour of studying implementations (assuming you had access to, and
time to study, all browser implications). As far as the javascript
specification is concerned the implementations that assert that they
comply with ECMA 262 actually have very few deviations from the
specification (and mostly insignificant ones) so knowing how a
javascript engine should be expected to behave is a very good guide to
99%+ of the actual behaviour of implementations, including the ones that
are unavailable for actual testing.

It seems that moving windows around by reference rather
than ID would be a speed improvement and probably slightly
less code,

As in general whenever you can pass, access or store a string value you
can also pass, access or store an object reference the use of string
references just adds a layer of needless complexity and a runtime
overhead.

so you can rest-assured my application will reflect this
when I next have a play with it.

OK, but doesn't that make you suspect "all you need to know to ..."

I don't respond to authority though. Never have, never will

Not even to listen?

(unless you're paying me).

In the event of needing more javascript programmers I would be looking
for someone with more practical experience (though it would not be me
paying anyway, just interviewing).

Richard.

[darwinist]

Richard Cornford wrote:

darwinist wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

The example you gave was an example that required each
optgroup element to have and ID, that would be the
wrong thing to do.

<snip>

So you did, sorry. Weren't we discussing the clarity/readability of
javascript source code recently?

<snip>

>For example:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Feel free to criticise

You have never actually said what this thing is supposed to
be for.

It's to demonstrate all you need to know to start making
your own web-based desktop system, or any subset thereof
(a windowed-based application, for example).

Now there is a frightening notion.

Then you are easily frightened.

I didn't look at your actual code too
much,

This much is obvious from the rest of the post. Your criticisms have
some merit, but they would have taken as long to write (even for a fast
typist, which I assume you are), as reading the majority of the
application in question. There is no need for you to read it, except
that your arguments would have better aim, and probably would have been
shorter as a result.

I just verified that it did have the serious memory leak I was
expecting on IE, did not address the select element issue, and that you
could not drag one window over the contents of another because the mouse
co-ordinates were not available in the containing frame (that is, it
failed on the three primary issues of an in browser 'windowing' system
in IE). I suspect that much else that would be useful in any actual
application would also be missing, such as an ability for code executing
in a 'window' to respond to window dragging, re-sizing, closing and
focusing (moving to the front) actions.

Those could be useful and aren't precluded or made overly difficult by
imposing a complex framework, like some html windowing packages do. As
I said it is to demonstrate all you need to know to start making one
yourself. A lot of people who want to make web applications don't have
the encyclopedic knowledge of the specifications that you do, and
access to an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing.

It's far from perfect but it includes all
basic functionality required, plus an "immediate"
box, and a manual.

It looks like it is indented to be the bases for an
in-browser windowing system for web-applications. It
doesn't look capable enough for any actual example of
such,

Under Help->Examples there are several working examples
for making windows, making objects draggable, a hello
world program, etc.

There is quite a gap between 'hello world' and a web application
multi-facetted enough to warrant a windowing GUI.

"Hello World" is only the first example, as it should be. The basic
functionality of organising things in separate windows is not that
demanding on a browser, and a lot of basic web-applications could
benefit from it.

I'm sure you could make a better one that is free and even more
lightweight and efficient, but where is it?

Also the windowing system itself works, as does the
desktop.

but I suppose could be extended for specific
applications. However, as it is only really suited
for Mozilla/Gecko browsers as it stands

There isn't any browser-specific code, and although it's
not coded to an apparently well-known ie bug,

At least two well known IE bugs, but the number doesn't matter as any
one is sufficient to make the result viable for use on Windows IE only
Intranets, or multi-browser Intranets that include IE (i.e. the actual
market) for as long as your "I'm not particularly interested in coding
to the bugs of a product whose manufacturers don't even pretend it's
good anymore" stands.

Do you know if they've fixed it in ie 7?

it's fairly lightweight and quite
responsive in either major browser.

Maybe as it stands, but an actual application would be expected to have
something going on in those windows, which is what will slow the total
down.

Most of the content can be organised in separate documents in iframes,
which the browsers seem remarkably adept at handling. The windowing is
just for more versatile organisation.

(Incidentally "either major browser" sounds like the 'both browsers'
attitude prevalent at the end of the last century.)

You're right, I'm not sure what the opera problem is but I think it's
an opera bug.

I don't see it being of much practical benefit in
a world where IE support is normally expected (and
sometimes sufficient).

It's meant as a free codebase. I've seen nothing really
that does all desktop-environment stuff in a short, free,
clear fashion. Most is heavy or proprietary, or both, and
most try to reinvent the wheel.

There is the dilemma; if you attempt to anticipate and provide all that
an application may need the result will be 'heavy', and much of what is
included will be unnecessary in any real application, but so long as it
is omitted all you have is a demonstration that it is possible to drag
and re-size IFRAMEs in a container of some sort on a particular set of
browsers.

You may be surprised how much of a struggle it can be to a novice
javascript programmer. Just the individual techniques required are
popular "how to" articles all over the web. Having given liberal
comments my attempt was to draw together a set of practical how-tos. I
can see as a connoisseur of the language you are holding your nose up
at it.

or contribute.

You don't appear to be someone who takes advice, so
anything approaching collaboration is out of the question.

I appreciate your advice, even if you don't like what I do
with it. I happen to consider that what "works" is very
important.

My long experience of people declaring that something "works" or
"doesn't work" on this group has diminished the significance of the
word. So many things "work", by some criteria or another, that 'works'
is barely the starting point for a choice of implementation strategies.

Indeed my standard should have been stated more explicitly. Two main
browsers = as much of the desktop-share as any program written for any
specific operating system could hope to reach, maybe more.

Much of the time people are declaring things to 'work' only because they
have not tested them vigorously/seriously. Indeed you don't seem to have
tried stressing your code much, as the two megabyte memory leak in IE
per window instance should have become evident once you had opened and
closed 100 windows or so.

Maybe I should just declare my bias and write "runs best in firefox,
you broken-software using cretins", and put a link to download firefox
on the page for anyone in danger of these bugs affecting them. At least
it's free and will probably run on their operating system, if they're
allowed to install it.

Javsacript specs are what browsers should implement, but
actual browser support is what programmers need to worry
about.

The two are far too interrelated for the specifications to be dismissed
in favour of studying implementations (assuming you had access to, and
time to study, all browser implications). As far as the javascript
specification is concerned the implementations that assert that they
comply with ECMA 262 actually have very few deviations from the
specification (and mostly insignificant ones) so knowing how a
javascript engine should be expected to behave is a very good guide to
99%+ of the actual behaviour of implementations, including the ones that
are unavailable for actual testing.

Specifications are one half of what will work, the other half is what
has in fact been implemented in enough popular browsers to rely on it
in the wild.

It seems that moving windows around by reference rather
than ID would be a speed improvement and probably slightly
less code,

As in general whenever you can pass, access or store a string value you
can also pass, access or store an object reference the use of string
references just adds a layer of needless complexity and a runtime
overhead.

Thanks for the tip.

so you can rest-assured my application will reflect this
when I next have a play with it.

OK, but doesn't that make you suspect "all you need to know to ..."

Finish the sentence you are quoting.

I don't respond to authority though. Never have, never will

Not even to listen?

I'll listen to anyone, you don't have to pretend you're the arbiter of
correct javascript.

(unless you're paying me).

In the event of needing more javascript programmers I would be looking
for someone with more practical experience (though it would not be me
paying anyway, just interviewing).

Oh I just meant I'll take orders for money (within reason), but I've
got too many jobs right now, in order to get as much of that experience
you mention, as possible.

As you can probably tell I'm not a js programmer anyway, it's just one
of the many languages you have to use when dealing with php.

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

darwinist wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

>darwinist wrote:

>>Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>>>You have never actually said what this thing is
supposed to be for.

It's to demonstrate all you need to know to start
making your own web-based desktop system, or any
subset thereof (a windowed-based application, for

example).

Now there is a frightening notion.

Then you are easily frightened.

Or maybe I am familiar with the harm that follows form over-confidence
that it is a common symptom of individuals who have got beyond the
initial stages of starting to learn javascript, but mistake the ability
to make things that broadly 'work' for knowing javascript.

>I didn't look at your actual code too
much,

This much is obvious from the rest of the post. Your
criticisms have some merit, but they would have taken
as long to write (even for a fast typist, which I assume
you are), as reading the majority of the application in
question. There is no need for you to read it, except
that your arguments would have better aim, and probably
would have been shorter as a result.

Elsewhere we have discussed the readability of source code. I looked at
your source code and the prospect of attempting to read it did not
appeal.

However, it is only really necessary to consider attempting to
understand a third party script is there is some prospect that it may be
useful in some way. Having verified that it did not satisfy basic
criteria for the stated task any additional attention directed towards
it would be wasted.

>I just verified ... serious memory leak ... select
element issue, and ... could not drag one window over
the contents of another ...

<snip>

Those could be useful and aren't precluded or made overly
difficult by imposing a complex framework, like some html
windowing packages do. As I said it is to demonstrate all
you need to know to start making one yourself. A lot of
people who want to make web applications don't have the
encyclopedic knowledge of the specifications that you do,
and access to an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing.

The knowledge and level of understanding someone should possess prior to
attempting the creation of a complex web application may be subject to
some debate, but not knowing how to position, move and size Element, and
nest an IFRAME within them, strikes me as not knowing enough. But it
would not be the absence of that specific knowledge that I would worry
about, rather the grasp of the bigger picture that could be expected to
come with acquiring that knowledge. You don't get from novice to someone
who should be allowed to work on web applications by being handled "all
you need to know" as pre-written code.

<snip>

>>>It looks like it is indented to be the bases for an
in-browser windowing system for web-applications. It
doesn't look capable enough for any actual example of
such,

Under Help->Examples there are several working examples
for making windows, making objects draggable, a hello
world program, etc.

There is quite a gap between 'hello world' and a web
application multi-facetted enough to warrant a windowing
GUI.

"Hello World" is only the first example, as it should be.
The basic functionality of organising things in separate
windows is not that demanding on a browser, and a lot of
basic web-applications could benefit from it.

If you look at the current situation in web development you see a very
large number of people attempting to make AJAX web sites, seemingly only
because they can (and particularly because others have created
frameworks for them that make it even easier). This is the power of
fashion and the AJAX buzzword.

There is going to be a bit of an anti-AJAX back-lash soon, as was
indicated by an article in the (UK) Financial Times earlier in the week
about the security vulnerabilities (various forms of script insertion)
introduced by AJAX (none really introduced by AJAX as they all existed
before, but certainly all exposed more often by a growth in people
writing public sites that use AJAX). That article essentially blamed web
developers for increasingly using a technology that they did not
understand well enough to cover the security aspects of, and framework
authors for shielding them from that understanding.

Which is not to say that AJAX applications should not be created, it is
an ideal technology for Intranet applications and special purpose web
applications. But in many (probably most) cases doing something because
you can is not a good reason for doing it. For a start it goes against
the KISS principle (and when you don't understand the technology you are
using it is difficult to justify labelling the result 'simple') as much
of what has recently been done with AJAX had previously, and more
simply, been done with server-side technology. And then there is the
impact upon reliability, where an AXAX e-commerce site I looked at
recently was so tied up in technology that its author did not actually
understand that the result did not even work with non-default
installations of IE 6. Costing the owners of the site (who presumably
paid for it in good faith) an indeterminate proportion of their
potential income, where the traditional server-based approach to
e-commerce would have allowed them to take money of all their potential
customers (and an AJAX with clean degradation design would have allowed
them to have their cake and eat it too).

Some web applications would benefit from an in-browser windowing system
(I am working on one myself at the moment), but using one because you
can is likely to directly result in issues.

I'm sure you could make a better one that is free and
even more lightweight and efficient, but where is it?

If someone is about to shoot themselves in the foot handing them a
bigger gun is not doing them a favour.

<snip>

>At least two well known IE bugs, but the number doesn't
matter as any one is sufficient to make the result viable
for use on Windows IE only Intranets, or multi-browser
Intranets that include IE (i.e. the actual market) for as
long as your "I'm not particularly interested in coding to
the bugs of a product whose manufacturers don't even pretend
it's good anymore" stands.

Do you know if they've fixed it in ie 7?

I don't know, but it is unlikely that they would all be fixed (IE 7 is
not a major re-write it is a series of bug fixes and tweaks and some of
those issues are so inherent in the architecture of IE that they would
take a major re-write to actually fix). But it doesn't' matter as IE 7
is only going to be available for XP and 2003 (and presumably
Microsoft's new OS) so it will take even longer for it to becomes
dominate than the couple of years it took IE 6 to outstrip IE 5.

it's fairly lightweight and quite
responsive in either major browser.

Maybe as it stands, but an actual application would be
expected to have something going on in those windows, which
is what will slow the total down.

Most of the content can be organised in separate documents
in iframes, which the browsers seem remarkably adept at
handling. The windowing is just for more versatile organisation.

That will not make a significant difference to the way IE slows down
when you accumulate thousands of objects in the system.

<snip>

>>It's meant as a free codebase. I've seen nothing really
that does all desktop-environment stuff in a short, free,
clear fashion. Most is heavy or proprietary, or both, and
most try to reinvent the wheel.

There is the dilemma; if you attempt to anticipate and
provide all that an application may need the result will
be 'heavy', and much of what is included will be unnecessary
in any real application, but so long as it is omitted all
you have is a demonstration that it is possible to drag and
re-size IFRAMEs in a container of some sort on a particular
set of browsers.

You may be surprised how much of a struggle it can be to a
novice javascript programmer.

Why, it is inevitable that I would have been a novice javascript
programmer myself at some point in the past?

Just the individual techniques required are
popular "how to" articles all over the web. Having
given liberal comments my attempt was to draw together a
set of practical how-tos. I can see as a connoisseur of
the language you are holding your nose up at it.

One of the consequences of having been a novice myself is that I have
some idea of what path leads from there to some sort of understanding of
the subject.

<snip>

>>... . I happen to consider that what "works" is very
important.

My long experience of people declaring that something "works" or
"doesn't work" on this group has diminished the significance of the
word. ...

<snip>

Indeed my standard should have been stated more explicitly.
Two main browsers =

But not sufficiently well in IE for actual applications.

as much of the desktop-share as any program written
for any specific operating system could hope to reach,
maybe more.

>Much of the time people are declaring things to 'work' only because
they have not tested them vigorously/seriously. Indeed you don't
seem to have tried stressing your code much, as the two megabyte
memory leak in IE per window instance should have become evident
once you had opened and closed 100 windows or so.

Maybe I should just declare my bias and write "runs best in firefox,
you broken-software using cretins", and put a link to download firefox
on the page for anyone in danger of these bugs affecting them. At
least it's free and will probably run on their operating system, if
they're allowed to install it.

>>Javsacript specs are what browsers should implement,
but actual browser support is what programmers need
to worry about.

The two are far too interrelated for the specifications
to be dismissed in favour of studying implementations
(assuming you had access to, and time to study, all
browser implications). As far as the javascript
specification is concerned the implementations that
assert that they comply with ECMA 262 actually have
very few deviations from the specification (and mostly
insignificant ones) so knowing how a javascript engine
should be expected to behave is a very good guide to
99%+ of the actual behaviour of implementations,
including the ones that are unavailable for actual
testing.

Specifications are one half of what will work,

Specifications are what should work, and how it should work.

the other half is what has in fact been implemented
in enough popular browsers to rely on it in the wild.

That is the attitude that gets in the way of ever being able to write
cross-browser code.

>>It seems that moving windows around by reference rather
than ID would be a speed improvement and probably slightly
less code,

As in general whenever you can pass, access or store a
string value you can also pass, access or store an object
reference the use of string references just adds a layer
of needless complexity and a runtime overhead.

Thanks for the tip.

>>so you can rest-assured my application will reflect this
when I next have a play with it.

OK, but doesn't that make you suspect "all you need to know
to ..."

Finish the sentence you are quoting.

<snip>

You don't se the logic in questioning "all you need to know" when
additional information suggests changes?

Richard.