By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,795 Members | 1,242 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,795 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

OT: problems with orkut.com

P: n/a
Hi

I know, that there are a lot of people having problems with orkut.com,
errors like "object expected" and named objects missing. When loading
the site can generate some 10 errors, and still just leave a blue page
- seems like it heavily rely on JS.
Still, me and friends having problems and orkut seems just to ignore
it.

I am sure, that other poeple have problems, and I really wonder what
kind of problem it is.

The odd thing is, that it works some times, someplaces - makes think
the problem is in my computer.
Secondly, when using my work email on groups.google.com, then going to
orkut, then it works. Next, I sign out, and then in using my private
email, and I get a blue page. Though, as of now, that does not work.
This makes me believe, that it is some part of included JS for my
profile, which fails heavily. Hence, the problem is in their scripts.

This reminds me of a problem I once had with a site of mine, where the
included .js file did not have proper permissions and could not be
loaded.

Have anyone been thinking about this and bad JS coding in general?
To me, orkut is an example of how pages should not rely entirely on
JS.

WBR
Sonnich
Sep 23 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
On Sep 23, 4:07 pm, jodleren wrote:
I know, that there are a lot of people having problems with
orkut.com,
<snip>
I am sure, that other poeple have problems, and I really
wonder what kind of problem it is.
<snip>

If its Google then it must be incompetence.
Sep 23 '08 #2

P: n/a
Henry wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:07 pm, jodleren wrote:
>I know, that there are a lot of people having problems with
orkut.com,
<snip>
I am sure, that other poeple have problems, and I really
wonder what kind of problem it is.
<snip>

If its Google then it must be incompetence.
/* satire mode on */

Yes, I agree. And if something is Microsoft then
it must be incompetence.

In fact, in my opinion every employee in those companies
is incompetent, each and everyone of tens of thousands
of people, without an exception.

As soon as a person is not employed by the Evil Companies,
and writes posts in c.l.j, he might become competent, expert,
provided he has never worked for the Evil (and hopefully
never will.)

Perhaps therefore it is very important to post here with one's real
name so that even their former employees can be recognized as
evil, incompetent people.

If an incompetent Google-person writes

var i = 1;

then the code is wrong, incompetent, idiot's work, the performance
is questionable, and there are sure to be evil spirits involved in
the lines.

If a c.l.j expert writes

var i = 1;

then the code is admirable, following standards, correctly posted with
correct signature and quotation, with correct software and there
are good spirits in it, glory glory halleluja .

I hope some day I could become an expert here.

/* satire mode off */
Sep 23 '08 #3

P: n/a
On 2008-09-23 19:44, optimistx wrote:
If an incompetent Google-person writes

var i = 1;

then the code is wrong, incompetent, idiot's work, [...]

If a c.l.j expert writes

var i = 1;

then the code is admirable [...]
The first variant is more geared towards situations where high
performance is paramount. It sacrifices clarity and maintainability for
raw speed, which makes sense in a website that's visited by millions of
people every day.

The second form is more classical; it's simple, robust, and easy
to maintain and modify, but it can also act as a bottleneck. This is
canonical form. This is how it's taught in the exclusive (and very
expensive) elite programming courses, which many of the regulars of this
group attended. Personally, I also find the style more elegant compared
to the cramped alternative used by Google.

Hope that cleared it up for you.
Next week we can discuss the difference between i++.
- Conrad
Sep 23 '08 #4

P: n/a
On Sep 23, 6:44 pm, optimistx wrote:
Henry wrote:
>On Sep 23, 4:07 pm, jodleren wrote:
>>I know, that there are a lot of people having problems with
orkut.com,
<snip>
I am sure, that other poeple have problems, and I really
wonder what kind of problem it is.
<snip>
>If its Google then it must be incompetence.

/* satire mode on */

Yes, I agree. And if something is Microsoft then
it must be incompetence.

In fact, in my opinion every employee in those companies
is incompetent, each and everyone of tens of thousands
of people, without an exception.

As soon as a person is not employed by the Evil Companies,
and writes posts in c.l.j, he might become competent, expert,
provided he has never worked for the Evil (and hopefully
never will.)

Perhaps therefore it is very important to post here with one's real
name so that even their former employees can be recognized as
evil, incompetent people.

If an incompetent Google-person writes

var i = 1;

then the code is wrong, incompetent, idiot's work, the performance
is questionable, and there are sure to be evil spirits involved in
the lines.

If a c.l.j expert writes

var i = 1;

then the code is admirable,
There is no need to conjecture about code that Google employees may or
may not write when you can look at code that they actually do write,
and goes unchanged and unnoticed for year after year. An adequate
illustration can be found at:-

<URL: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript >

- where viewing the source of the served page reveals:-

| <script language="javascript"><!--
|
| // ----------------------------------
| // used for dynamic function generation on event handlers
|
| var loaddef = "";
| var resizedef = "";
|
| //-----------------------------------
| // Browser detection and support
|
| var agt = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();
| var is_opera = (agt.indexOf("opera") != -1);
| var is_ie = (agt.indexOf("msie") != -1) && document.all && !
is_opera;
| var is_ie5 = (agt.indexOf("msie 5") != -1) && document.all;
| window.agt = agt;
| window.is_opera = is_opera;
| window.is_ie = is_ie;
| window.is_ie5 = is_ie5;
|
| // ----------------------------------
| // cross-browser functions
|
| var IE_all_cache = new Object();
| function IE_getElementById(id) {
| if (IE_all_cache[id] == null) {
| IE_all_cache[id] = document.all[id];
| }
| return IE_all_cache[id];
| }
|
| if (document.all) {
| if (!document.getElementById) {
| document.getElementById = IE_getElementById;
| }
| }
|
|
|
| //----------------------------------
| // Timezone detection (sets cookie)
|
| try {
| document.cookie = 'GTZ=' + (new Date()).getTimezoneOffset() +
| ';path=/;expires=Mon, 01-Jan-2024 00:00:01 GMT';
| } catch(e) {}
|
|
| // ---------------------------------
| // shelled functions for old javascript
| function tog() {}
|
| //--></script>
| <script language="javascript1.3"><!--
|
| // ----------------------------------
| // visibility functions
|
| function tog() {
| // tog: toggle the visibility of html elements (arguments[1..])
| // from none to arguments[0]. Return what should be returned
| // in a javascript onevent().
| display = arguments[0];
| for( var i=1; i<arguments.length; i++ ) {
... and so on.

Disregarding user agent string based browser sniffing, the undeclared
variables that should be local (- display = arguments[0]; -) and the
perverse and redundant (-window.agt = agt; - with a previous global -
var agt = ... -), here there is an attempt to do something that, if it
were effective, might be admirable. Specifically, the use of various
forms of language="javascriptX.X" attributes in the SCRIPT elements in
an attempt to gain controlled outcomes in older browsers. Somebody has
obviously identified this as desirable and attempted to implement it
(or have someone else implement it).

Two language versions are employed by SCRIPT elements in the page's
source; version 1.3 and the generic language="javascript", which means
any version from the first. Most of the code above is the main
language="javascript" element where we see, for example, an
implementation of a substitute - document.getElementById - method for
IE 4 (IE 4 did not have that method and would not load
language="javascript1.3" SCRIPT elements). We also see a dummy - tog
- function defined so that these older browsers will not error when
intrinsic event handlers attempt to call that - tog- function. The
real - tog - function is defined in a subsequent
language="javascript1.3" SCRIPT element.

There are two problems with this. The first is the logic of the
targeted language versions. JavaScript 1.3 first shipped with Netscape
4.06 so from that versions on Netscape browsers will be loading
language="javascript1.3" SCRIPT elements, and either producing syntax
errors as they attempt to interpret the code or runtime errors when
they attempt to execute it. Even if people are still using Netscape 4
the odds of them using a pre 4.06 version are extremely low
(particularly as, while they were still distributing it, Netscape
recommended that nobody use a pre 4.78 version due to serious security
flaws in earlier versions).

The second problem, and the totally fatal one, is that sitting in the
middle of the language="javascript" SCRIPT element (the one that is
supposed to provide the fall-back) is a try/catch block, and try/catch
was introduced in JavaScript 1.4, JScript 5 and ECMAScript 3, which
translates to Opera 5+, IE 5+, Netscape 6+ (and Mozilla/Gecko/
Firefox). Try/catch is a syntax error in all previously language
versions, and the code in elements that contain any syntax errors will
never be evaluated. Thus, on (all off) the very browsers that will not
process the language="javascript1.3" the SCRIPT element that is
supposed to be providing their fall-back will never be evaluated due
to the syntax error, rendering the whole exercise self-defeating.

A competent javascript developer would see this within a few seconds
of starting to try to understand what the javascript on the page does.
Obviously its author(s) did not know enough to avoid writing code that
defeated its own best efforts, but that is not unusual in itself as
the individual doing a job like that could be quite junior. The
significant indication of this is that whoever is in charge of this
authoring effort, the most senior/knowledgeable developer involved,
did not see this mistake (whether through not looking or looking but
not knowing enough to recognise it when seen), and that is
incompetence. It is also the norm for Google javascript authoring.

(The apparent absence of any (effective) QA prior to deployment might
also be the subject of criticism, but that is Google management's
incompetence not its web developer's)
following standards, correctly posted with correct signature and
quotation, with correct software and there are good spirits in
it, glory glory halleluja .

I hope some day I could become an expert here.

/* satire mode off */
Whine a lot, don't you?
Sep 24 '08 #5

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <2409108b-bf40-430b-b789-7829966fc393@2g
2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:58:13, Henry
<rc*******@raindrop.co.ukposted:
>| // Timezone detection (sets cookie)
|
| try {
| document.cookie = 'GTZ=' + (new Date()).getTimezoneOffset() +
| ';path=/;expires=Mon, 01-Jan-2024 00:00:01 GMT';
| } catch(e) {}
That only detects the time zone in winter-time. The identifier
getTimezoneOffset should not have contained the substring "zone".
JavaScript upgraders please note.

--
(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.
Oct 9 '08 #6

P: n/a
On Sep 23, 1:44*pm, "optimistx" <optimistxPoi...@poistahotmail.com>
wrote:
Henry wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:07 pm, jodleren wrote:
I know, that there are a lot of people having problems with
orkut.com,
<snip>
I am sure, that other poeple have problems, and I really
wonder what kind of problem it is.
<snip>
If its Google then it must be incompetence.

/* satire mode on */

Yes, I agree. And if something is Microsoft then
it must be incompetence.
When it comes to the Web, yes. Why do you think they were so hot to
buy Yahoo!?

Last I checked, all of their frameworks used server side browser
sniffing. What is that stupid tool called? BrowserPigeon or
something? It is hard to believe that a company with so many
resources could produce such incompetent products, but there it is.
And don't get me started on Windows.

[snip]

What an idiot.
Oct 10 '08 #7

P: n/a
On 2008-10-10 03:02, David Mark wrote:
>Yes, I agree. And if something is Microsoft then
it must be incompetence.

When it comes to the Web, yes. Why do you think they were so hot to
buy Yahoo!?

Last I checked, all of their frameworks used server side browser
sniffing. What is that stupid tool called? BrowserPigeon or
something? It is hard to believe that a company with so many
resources could produce such incompetent products, but there it is.
And don't get me started on Windows.

[snip]

What an idiot.
May I interest you in one of the *.advocacy or *.evangelism groups out
there? Judging from your last posts, you have some serious hatreds, and
I'm sure you'd feel right at home in one of those groups.
- Conrad
Oct 10 '08 #8

P: n/a
On Oct 9, 9:39*pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo.comwrote:
On 2008-10-10 03:02, David Mark wrote:
Yes, I agree. And if something is Microsoft then
it must be incompetence.
When it comes to the Web, yes. *Why do you think they were so hot to
buy Yahoo!?
Last I checked, all of their frameworks used server side browser
sniffing. *What is that stupid tool called? *BrowserPigeon or
something? *It is hard to believe that a company with so many
resources could produce such incompetent products, but there it is.
And don't get me started on Windows.
[snip]
What an idiot.

May I interest you in one of the *.advocacy or *.evangelism groups out
Hardly.
there? Judging from your last posts, you have some serious hatreds, and
I'm sure you'd feel right at home in one of those groups.
Never mind your judgment or what you feel. It's all OT here.
Oct 10 '08 #9

P: n/a
David Mark wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:44 pm, "optimistx" <optimistxPoi...@poistahotmail.com>
wrote:
>Henry wrote:
sniffing. What is that stupid tool called? BrowserPigeon or
What is wrong with BrowserPidgeon?
something? It is hard to believe that a company with so many
resources could produce such incompetent products, but there it is.
And don't get me started on Windows.
Windows is rad. Except it won't start :O
[snip]

What an idiot.
No way that was a good post.
Oct 10 '08 #10

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
David Mark wrote:
>On Sep 23, 1:44 pm, "optimistx" <optimistxPoi...@poistahotmail.com>
wrote:
>>Henry wrote:
>
No way that was a good post.

I meant that, BTW.
Oct 10 '08 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.