can some1 help with my kink is java

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by mark2kay@gmail.com, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. Guest

    the assignment was to make list of 7 days starting with curent only
    that red was supposed to be in red. ive creted code only problem is its
    automatically makes 1st day red, which would be ok if day is sunday but
    6 days out of week assignment will be wrong, heres code.

    "<html><title>Marks JS</title>

    <body> <font size = "4">

    <script language = "JavaScript">

    <!--Hide from non-Javascript browsers

    var Today = new Date() ;

    var DayNumber = Today.getDay() ;



    var Day;

    var weekday=new Array(14);

    weekday[0]="Sunday";

    weekday[1]="Monday";

    weekday[2]="Tuesday";

    weekday[3]="Wednesday";

    weekday[4]="Thursday";

    weekday[5]="Friday";

    weekday[6]="Saturday";

    weekday[7]="Sunday";

    weekday[8]="Monday";

    weekday[9]="Tuesday";

    weekday[10]="Wednesday";

    weekday[11]="Thursday";

    weekday[12]="Friday";

    weekday[13]="Saturday";

    var color=new Array(14);

    color[0]="red";

    color[1]="blue";

    color[2]="green";

    color[3]="orange";

    color[4]="black";

    color[5]="yellow";

    color[6]="gray";

    color[7]="red";

    color[8]="Monday";

    color[9]="blue";

    color[10]="green";

    color[11]="orange";

    color[12]="black";

    color[13]="yellow";

    i = Today.getDay();

    for(i=0;i<7;i++)

    {

    DayNumber = Today.getDay() +i;

    document.write("<font color = " + color + " >"+"The day is " +
    weekday[DayNumber] + "<br/></font>") ;

    }



    //Stop hiding -->

    </script></font></table></body></html>"
    , Apr 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hal Rosser Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > the assignment was to make list of 7 days starting with curent only
    > that red was supposed to be in red. ive creted code only problem is its
    > automatically makes 1st day red, which would be ok if day is sunday but
    > 6 days out of week assignment will be wrong, heres code.
    >
    >

    **snip**
    > document.write("<font color = " + color + " >"+"The day is " +
    > weekday[DayNumber] + "<br/></font>") ;
    >


    in your code listed above, if you change the first line to:
    document.write("<font color = " + color[DayNumber] + " >"+"The day is " +
    (Adding an index in square braces after the array variable named color)
    Your output will (probably) do what you are expecting.
    You have other errors and some deprecated tags and attributes, but that
    little change will make it work.
    Hal Rosser, Apr 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    omg, you are teh greatest it worked, i tested by changing my schedule.

    thx.

    i have a html job i need done you got time/intrested? im paying
    , Apr 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Hal Rosser Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > omg, you are teh greatest it worked, i tested by changing my schedule.
    >
    > thx.
    >
    > i have a html job i need done you got time/intrested? im paying
    >


    But I am not the greatest -( yet). I'll be a student for the next 20 years.
    I wish I was a teenager again - that's when I knew everything.
    and no, but thanks - about the job.
    IMO, the most helpful of posters on this group are Richard Cornford and one
    called RobG.

    Good luck on your studies. And if you do your own work, you'll learn more.
    Hal Rosser, Apr 10, 2006
    #4
  5. JRS: In article <>
    , dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:47:20 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
    posted :
    >the assignment was to make list of 7 days starting with curent only
    >that red was supposed to be in red. ive creted code only problem is its
    >automatically makes 1st day red, which would be ok if day is sunday but
    >6 days out of week assignment will be wrong, heres code.


    But red is always red. Your specification is unclear. Your subject line
    is meaningless.

    for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"), "<br>")

    No doubt if you had been paying attention to your class instruction you
    would have been able to do the job in more or less the manner that you
    attempted. I've therefore done it in a manner which might, by making you
    think, teach you an equivalent amount. Don't expect your instructor to
    accept it as your own work.

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
    <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.
    Dr John Stockton, Apr 10, 2006
    #5
  6. Hal Rosser Guest

    "Dr John Stockton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JRS: In article <>
    > , dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:47:20 remote, seen in

    news:comp.lang.javascript,
    >
    > for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    > document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"),

    "<br>")

    Some professors would beat you about the head and shoulders for using a
    post-increment operator as a boolean test, and for placing (code that should
    be in the body of the loop) as the "update-Expression" in the top parens of
    the loop, or for using a day number as a boolean test. I'm beginning to see
    what they mean about your code. my GOD, man! Have you no shame? hehehe ;-)
    You ride the rugged edge of the language specifications (but inside the
    bounds ).
    Is it no longer "fashionable" to try to conform (as much as practical) to
    XHTML practices - like using "<br />" ?
    Hal Rosser, Apr 11, 2006
    #6
  7. Lee Guest

    Hal Rosser said:
    >
    >
    >"Dr John Stockton" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> JRS: In article <>
    >> , dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:47:20 remote, seen in

    >news:comp.lang.javascript,
    >>
    >> for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    >> document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"),

    >"<br>")
    >
    >Some professors would beat you about the head and shoulders for using a
    >post-increment operator as a boolean test, and for placing (code that should
    >be in the body of the loop) as the "update-Expression" in the top parens of
    >the loop, or for using a day number as a boolean test.


    All completely ridiculous things to be bothered by.
    But then, a surprising number of professional "developers" that
    I run into these days have a really hard time understanding code.

    >I'm beginning to see
    >what they mean about your code. my GOD, man! Have you no shame? hehehe ;-)


    The code you're complaining about is essentially "library code".
    Efficiency is a higher priority than readability or even
    maintainability. It is not intended to be read and understood
    by the typical user.


    --
    Lee, Apr 11, 2006
    #7
  8. Hal Rosser Guest

    "Lee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hal Rosser said:
    > >
    > >
    > >"Dr John Stockton" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> JRS: In article

    <>
    > >> , dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:47:20 remote, seen in

    > >news:comp.lang.javascript,
    > >>
    > >> for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    > >> document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"),

    > >"<br>")
    > >
    > >Some professors would beat you about the head and shoulders for using a
    > >post-increment operator as a boolean test, and for placing (code that

    should
    > >be in the body of the loop) as the "update-Expression" in the top parens

    of
    > >the loop, or for using a day number as a boolean test.

    >
    > All completely ridiculous things to be bothered by.
    > But then, a surprising number of professional "developers" that
    > I run into these days have a really hard time understanding code.
    >
    > >I'm beginning to see
    > >what they mean about your code. my GOD, man! Have you no shame? hehehe

    ;-)
    >
    > The code you're complaining about is essentially "library code".
    > Efficiency is a higher priority than readability or even
    > maintainability. It is not intended to be read and understood
    > by the typical user.


    I'm not *complaining* about the code (in this post) - just making some
    'jovial' comments.
    The posted code is, as you say, efficient and not intended to be read and
    understood by the typical user.
    Well - there you go! You said it. Does it also follow that this newsgroup is
    not intended to be read and understood by the typical user?
    :;-)
    Hal
    Hal Rosser, Apr 11, 2006
    #8
  9. Lee Guest

    Hal Rosser said:
    >
    >
    >"Lee" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Hal Rosser said:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >"Dr John Stockton" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> JRS: In article

    ><>
    >> >> , dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 14:47:20 remote, seen in
    >> >news:comp.lang.javascript,
    >> >>
    >> >> for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    >> >> document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"),
    >> >"<br>")
    >> >
    >> >Some professors would beat you about the head and shoulders for using a
    >> >post-increment operator as a boolean test, and for placing (code that

    >should
    >> >be in the body of the loop) as the "update-Expression" in the top parens

    >of
    >> >the loop, or for using a day number as a boolean test.

    >>
    >> All completely ridiculous things to be bothered by.
    >> But then, a surprising number of professional "developers" that
    >> I run into these days have a really hard time understanding code.
    >>
    >> >I'm beginning to see
    >> >what they mean about your code. my GOD, man! Have you no shame? hehehe

    >;-)
    >>
    >> The code you're complaining about is essentially "library code".
    >> Efficiency is a higher priority than readability or even
    >> maintainability. It is not intended to be read and understood
    >> by the typical user.

    >
    >I'm not *complaining* about the code (in this post) - just making some
    >'jovial' comments.
    >The posted code is, as you say, efficient and not intended to be read and
    >understood by the typical user.
    >Well - there you go! You said it. Does it also follow that this newsgroup is
    >not intended to be read and understood by the typical user?


    No, but when somebody asks how to round off, one valid answer is to
    point them to a function that does what they want, even if they may
    not be expected to understand how it does it.

    If they ask how to do something of a more general nature, it might
    be better to respond with code that sacrifices efficiency for the
    sake of accessibility.


    --
    Lee, Apr 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Hal Rosser wrote:
    > Lee wrote:
    >> Hal Rosser said:

    <snip>
    > The posted code is, as you say, efficient and not intended
    > to be read and understood by the typical user.


    > Well - there you go! You said it. Does it also follow that
    > this newsgroup is not intended to be read and understood
    > by the typical user? :;-)


    It is probably a personal thing but I prefer the 'user' to be thought of
    as the person who ends up interacting with the software written, and the
    person 'using' the language as the programmer. In which case this group
    is definitely not for the typical user (as they couldn't (even
    shouldn't) care less about javascript, and probably don't even know what
    it is).

    But would the implication of what you are saying be that all posted code
    should be suitable for novice javascript programmers? That would not be
    such a good idea as then the group would never be able to assist people
    in getting beyond the novice stage. In reality the code posted to the
    group ranges from that suited to beginners to some of the most advanced
    javascript written, as it should as that way the group can be
    interesting/instructive even for its more long standing contributors.

    Ultimately, if someone does not understand some posted code they can
    always have a go at formulating a question about it and posting that to
    the group in the hope of an explanation. There are people willing to
    have a go at explaining code if suitably asked.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Apr 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Hal Rosser wrote:
    > Dr John Stockton wrote:

    <snip>
    >> for ( D = new Date(), k = -7 ; k++ ; D.setDate(D.getDate()+1) )
    >> document.writeln(D.toString().fontcolor(D.getDay()?"blue":"red"),
    >> "<br>")

    >
    > Some professors would beat you about the head and shoulders
    > for using a post-increment operator as a boolean test, and
    > for placing (code that should be in the body of the loop)
    > as the "update-Expression" in the top parens of the loop,
    > or for using a day number as a boolean test.


    In loosely-types javascript all values have implicit trueness so it is
    not at all unusual to see values that are known not to be of boolean
    type in contexts where other languages would require boolean values.
    That is also not undesirable as working with a loosely-typed language
    places the onus on the programmer to keep track of the types of values
    and appreciate the consequences and implications of any implicit
    type-conversion.

    This wider concept of trueness, extending beyond the Boolean type, is
    evident in the language itself, where, for example, the logical AND and
    OR operators do not necessarily result in boolean values, instead the
    actual value of the pertinent operand is the result.

    So a javascript programmer should be expected to able to see a value in
    a context where it would be subject to the application of the internal
    ToBoolean function and understand what the possible resulting boolean
    values will be. That is just part of the discipline of writing with a
    loosely typed language.

    > I'm beginning to see what they mean about your code. my GOD,
    > man! Have you no shame? hehehe ;-) You ride the rugged edge
    > of the language specifications (but inside the bounds ).


    The terseness of John's code is if occasionally commented upon, but that
    is nowhere near the 'ragged edge' of ECMAScript.

    > Is it no longer "fashionable" to try to conform (as much as
    > practical) to XHTML practices - like using "<br />" ?


    It is a lamentable truth that the average standard of technical
    understanding possessed by web developers/designers world-wide is
    atrocious. If something becomes 'fashionable' the odds are good that it
    did not become fashionable for sound technical reasons.

    HTML and XHTML are distinct mark-up languages, and in our context of
    browser scripting that distinction is manifest in these two different
    mark-up languages resulting in two distinct types of DOM being exposed
    to be scripted. And the differences between those two types of DOM (by
    specification and in practice) are such that very few non-trivial
    scripts will be capable of successfully interacting with both types of
    DOM. We have the HTML DOM, with its case insensitivity, historical
    shortcut features, preference for setting Element properties directly,
    and so on. While the XHTML DOM is case sensitive, rarely implements more
    than is explicitly specified, prefers to have Elements defined with the
    setAttribute (or setAttributeNS) methods, has an interest in namespaces,
    and traditionally omit some features commonly used in HTML DOMs such
    as - document.write -. If a document is to be scripted it is quite
    important to know which type of DOM is being scripted, and advice on
    scripting one DOM is likely to get in the way when scripting the other.

    The decision as to which type of DOM a browser creates is based entirely
    upon the content-type header sent by the server with the document. If
    the content-type is text/html then the browser will interpret the
    document as HTML and build an HTML DOM. Only when a browser supports
    XHTML, receives as well-formed XHTML document and receives a formally
    correct XHTML mime type in the content-type header is an XHTML DOM
    created, and those are also the only circumstances under which a
    document really is XHTML, regardless of the appearance of its mark-up.

    Because IE does not support XHTML, and cannot create an XHTML DOM, in
    order for a document that had XHTML-like mark-up to be displayed in IE
    it must be sent with a text/html content-type header. IE then interprets
    that document as HTML and error-corrects all of the XTHML-like mark-up
    back into tag soup HTML. That is, serving documents that superficially
    resemble XHTML to be displayed by IE imposes an entire extra
    error-correction stage on the client for the document to be interpreted
    as the HTML that it would have been without the imposing the illusion of
    document. With the additional irony that sending this document in this
    way to a browser that does understand XHTML, like Mozilla or Opera, will
    still result in its being interpreted as HTML, subject to
    error-correction, and an HTML DOM being built for it.

    All of this error-correction has implications for the resulting HTML DOM
    as error-correction rules are not formally specified and browsers are
    observed to behave differently while carrying it out, producing
    structurally different HTML DOMs to be scripted.

    Finally, there is the formal definition of HTML to be contended with. By
    specification - <br / - is a shorthand for - <br></br> - in HTML, and
    so - <br /> - is equivalent to - <br>&gt; -; a BR element followed by a
    'greater than' symbol. Fortunately for the people following this
    'fashion' most browsers do not follow this particualr formal rule and
    instead regard it as an error to be corrected in HTML mark-up, though
    there is always a chance that there are browsers that take the HTML
    specification at its word and there the result will undesirable.

    So it is not a question of what may or may not be fashionable. The
    technically informed will write HTML mark-up when they want to serve a
    document as text/html and script and HTML DOM, and XHTML mark-up when
    they want to serve a document as XHTML and script an XHTML DOM. And with
    IE not supporting the second option at all the former is the sensible
    option when authoring in a commercial context. (The only alternative
    being content negotiation, but you cannot content negotiate scripts and
    attempting to write scripts that will work with XHTML DOMs and HTML DOMs
    is double the effort for no tangible benefits, so not a sensible option
    in a commercial context.)

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Apr 11, 2006
    #11
  12. Richard Cornford wrote:
    <snip>
    > ... without the imposing the illusion of document. ...

    <snip>

    Should have been: " without the imposing the illusion of XHTML on the
    document"

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Apr 12, 2006
    #12
  13. RobG Guest

    Hal Rosser said on 12/04/2006 7:05 AM AEST:
    > "Lee" <> wrote in message
    > news:...

    [...]
    >>The code you're complaining about is essentially "library code".
    >>Efficiency is a higher priority than readability or even
    >>maintainability. It is not intended to be read and understood
    >>by the typical user.

    >
    >
    > I'm not *complaining* about the code (in this post) - just making some
    > 'jovial' comments.
    > The posted code is, as you say, efficient and not intended to be read and
    > understood by the typical user.
    > Well - there you go! You said it. Does it also follow that this newsgroup is
    > not intended to be read and understood by the typical user?


    I does seem a bit contradictory to have an FAQ to answer what are likely
    novice questions, and also to have posted in the same page code that is
    expected to be used as-is and without regard for comprehension by those
    very same novices. However, expanding the code with full comments and
    descriptive variable names would likely quadruple its size (or more).

    JRS may have a good point that post such code will encourage programmers
    to learn how it works, and in learning that way more knowledge will
    stick. But on the other hand it will frustrate some who feel it is
    unnecessarily cryptic and as a result may turn to DynamicDrive or JSGuru
    or other junk sites.

    Richards advice is good - try to understand it, and if you have
    questions about a specific point, ask here. Those who have made the
    effort to understand before asking a question are treated much more
    kindly than those who clearly haven't. :)


    --
    Rob
    Group FAQ: <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/FAQ>
    RobG, Apr 12, 2006
    #13
  14. Hal Rosser Guest

    "Lee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > No, but when somebody asks how to round off, one valid answer is to
    > point them to a function that does what they want, even if they may
    > not be expected to understand how it does it.
    >

    *** ** That was a different thread ** does not apply here The OP in this
    thread left off the array index - and a few other mistakes, but rounding was
    not mentioned - (you can blast me on the other thread - and explain FAQ 4.6
    to the group)
    ****
    > If they ask how to do something of a more general nature, it might
    > be better to respond with code that sacrifices efficiency for the
    > sake of accessibility.
    >

    ***** yay! ** that's been my point on other posts (re: FAQ 4.6)
    ********** :)
    Hal
    Hal Rosser, Apr 12, 2006
    #14
  15. JRS: In article <gdX_f.1017$>, dated Tue,
    11 Apr 2006 23:46:20 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, RobG
    <> posted :

    >I does seem a bit contradictory to have an FAQ to answer what are likely
    >novice questions, and also to have posted in the same page code that is
    >expected to be used as-is and without regard for comprehension by those
    >very same novices. However, expanding the code with full comments and
    >descriptive variable names would likely quadruple its size (or more).


    A FAQ, regularly posted to News, is not meant to be a tutorial; a
    tutorial might be posted once, in suitably-sized pieces, to News for
    comment, but should not be posted regularly. The heading of FAQ 4.6 is
    a question, and the code answers it.

    Those who want to understand code such as in 4.6 can always execute it
    with pencil and paper. Or they could follow the link provided and see a
    newer version embedded in more text.

    <FAQENTRY>
    Richard, for the next FAQ version, please look at my Web page section
    js-round.htm#GC - the present version (which may change ...) has a StrU
    with the same algorithm somewhat differently expressed. I provide both
    PrfxTo and SpcsTo because I need PrfxTo there and elsewhere, and several
    SpcsTo elsewhere - but, for StrU alone, SpcsTo(,) could be replaced with
    PrfxTo(,," ").

    M & N can in fact each be zero, though then giving a non-preferred
    format. Negative is just silly; but, as they'll generally be supplied
    as literals, it's generally not worth coding a check.
    </FAQENTRY>

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
    <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.
    Dr John Stockton, Apr 12, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. priyom
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    420
    priyom
    Nov 25, 2006
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    302
  3. patrick j

    Curious Kink

    patrick j, Mar 16, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    425
    patrick j
    Mar 17, 2007
  4. Casey Hawthorne
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    713
    Arne Vajhøj
    Mar 18, 2009
  5. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    277
    David Lees
    Apr 19, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page