By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,843 Members | 2,324 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,843 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
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/:
Jul 7 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
12 Replies


P: n/a
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
Jul 7 '08 #2

P: n/a

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
Jul 7 '08 #3

P: n/a
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 <lorl...@gmail.comwrote:
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]
Jul 7 '08 #4

P: n/a
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, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Jul 7 '08 #5

P: n/a
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 <PointedE...@web.de>
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$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>
Jul 7 '08 #6

P: n/a
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
Jul 7 '08 #7

P: n/a
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 <PointedE...@web.de>
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$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>
Jul 8 '08 #8

P: n/a
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 für den alpinen Raum
Jul 8 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Jul 7, 1:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
"Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's idea.
Hello PointedEars,

Can you elaborate on this comment?
Kind Regards,
- Karl
Jul 8 '08 #10

P: n/a
Krukow wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>"Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent idiot's
idea.

[...] Can you elaborate on this comment?
I already have. Suffice it to say that implementations of the concept can
be useful as a last resort to avoid repeated event handler attribute values
for non-bubbling events or to handle proprietary events. But it should not
be used as a general programming approach for the reasons already given.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Jul 8 '08 #11

P: n/a
On Jul 7, 10:34 pm, lorlarz wrote:
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/
JSLint is not a competition, you don't do well or badly; you pass or
fail.
-- no
stricter standard than that!
Standard of what? Passing JSLint means that you have syntactically
correct javascript source code (which you would more or less need to
have if it was going to execute at all) and you have not employed any
constructs/practices that are both machine detectable and disapproved
of by Douglas Crockford. Javascript code can pass that test and still
be objectively and obviously bad, so all JSLint would be doing was
asserting that the code avoided the opportunity to be worse.
And:
jQuery (esp. just the core) is just good JavaScript
LOL. Says who? Presumably they include the individuals who reviewed
John Resig's book and failed to recognise its parroting of
misconceptions, technical fictions, bullshit assertions and
recommendations of unprofessional practices.
-- pure
Javascript,
providing utility functions and shortcuts; the prototypes of
objects are not messed with at all , like with prototype.js .
While not repeating all of the mistakes of other software may be a
step in the right direction the result is not necessarily "good
JavaScript".
Perhaps you should research
jQuery a bit more.
Perhaps _you_ should research jQuery a bit more.
All jQuery and its extensions or "plugins" are just pure
JavaScript, with NO manipulation of prototypes.
<snip>

Your point being? Manipulating prototypes is a completely normal and
sensible part of javascript programming. There may be good reasons for
questioning the manipulation of the prototypes of the built-in
constructors (or at least some of them) but that is as far as it goes.
Jul 8 '08 #12

P: n/a
On Jul 8, 10:24 am, Krukow wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>"Unobtrusive JavaScript" as a general concept is an incompetent
idiot's idea.

Hello PointedEars,

Can you elaborate on this comment?
In the event that that, and searching the archives, does not elicit a
useful answer you could try reversing the question by enumerating any
points made in favour of "unobtrusive javascript" and so see to what
extent those points are subject to criticism.
Jul 9 '08 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.