jQuery crashes sites in IE

[David Mark]

(Per Matt Kruse's request about using Ajax with jQuery.)

jQuery throws exceptions in IE (all versions) and there's no way for
the calling app to know this will happen (it will just blunder into
it, leaving documents in an unreadable state.)

Well, only for one large segment of the computer-savvy population and
only during the day.

xhr:function(){
return window.ActiveXObject ? new ActiveXObject
("Microsoft.XMLHTTP") : new XMLHttpRequest();
},

He also wanted to know about something called "fadeOut" as well.
Matt, that's just the old setOpacity function, which has been
published here repeatedly. Use window.setInterval to complete your
own "fadeOut." Of course, a fade transition is virtually free in most
of the latest browsers (always has been in IE.) Firefox is sure to
follow, so don't worry about writing animations in Javascript (they
won't look very good on agents like iPhones anyway, assuming they work
at all.)

I posted this on top as I figured others would be interested. If you
don't understand how the time of day could cause variations in jQuery
behavior (on the same agent no less), you really should. Or... just
skip it (as has been recommended repeatedly for the last three years.)

For more on jQuery and its erstwhile promoter:

http://mattkruse.com/2009/02/11/jquerys-latest-stab-at-competence/

HTH.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I posted this on top as I figured others would be interested.

On top of what?


SCNR

PointedEars, interested

 

[Matt Kruse]

(Per Matt Kruse's request about using Ajax with jQuery.)

Did I make a request?

jQuery throws exceptions in IE (all versions)

I've never experienced this.

Well, only for one large segment of the computer-savvy population and
only during the day.

Your description is lacking substance.

He also wanted to know about something called "fadeOut" as well.

What did I want to know?

Matt, that's just the old setOpacity function, which has been
published here repeatedly.  Use window.setInterval to complete your
own "fadeOut."

Which would be the beginning of a general-purpose library, no? An
average developer would like to fadeOut an object and have it
disappear. To do so they must know how to set intervals, how to set
opacity in a cross-browser way, how to time it right to make it look
good, how to remove the element, etc.

You see, that's the point of a library. To do all the work for them so
they can focus their time on other functionality and just have the
fadeOut work!

I posted this on top as I figured others would be interested.  

On top of what? Do you really think others would be interested, or do
you just want to call attention to yourself?

If you
don't understand how the time of day could cause variations in jQuery
behavior (on the same agent no less), you really should.

I don't follow, no. And I bet you aren't going to explain, either,
which would be typical. I guess you win. You're a genius!

For more on jQuery and its erstwhile promoter:
http://mattkruse.com/2009/02/11/jquerys-latest-stab-at-competence/

.... and?

Hey, if anyone goes there, check out some of the other stuff.
Especially the PHP Excel Reader, which I just updated a few days ago.
It's not javascript, but it's pretty cool

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

Did I make a request?

Yes. You also indicated something about these problems being easy to
spot and diagnose. *Anybody* could do it, unless of course, they
happen to work on the jQuery project.

I've never experienced this.

Have I not told you before that your anecdotes are not evidence? As
with most of these misfires, empirical evidence should not be required
anyway.

Your description is lacking substance.

Actually there are other groups as well. But one big one stands out
(for anyone with even minor experience scripting browsers.)

What did I want to know?

Whether it was simpler and more concise to use jQuery to set the
opacity of an element over time. It ain't.

Which would be the beginning of a general-purpose library, no? An

No. The setOpacity function that you will need bears no resemblance
to the browser sniffing wonder in your chosen version of jQuery. It
isn't very long and doesn't need 50K of broken code to work.

average developer would like to fadeOut an object and have it
disappear. To do so they must know how to set intervals

And how does jQuery make it more concise to set intervals?

, how to set
opacity in a cross-browser way, how to time it right to make it look

We've been over that and unfortunately for you and anyone else who
relies on jQuery, Resig wasn't paying attention.

good, how to remove the element, etc.

Who said anything about removing an element?

You see, that's the point of a library. To do all the work for them so

You can't do work if you're broken.

they can focus their time on other functionality and just have the
fadeOut work!

It just works! Get a job in a side show.

On top of what? Do you really think others would be interested, or do
you just want to call attention to yourself?

I'd think others would be *very* interested. Apparently you are in
that club as well.

I don't follow, no. And I bet you aren't going to explain, either,
which would be typical. I guess you win. You're a genius!

You were just crying yesterday about too much explanation. Now I am a
cipher? Please make up your mind.

... and?

Read it and contrast with your recent comments here.

Hey, if anyone goes there, check out some of the other stuff.
Especially the PHP Excel Reader, which I just updated a few days ago.
It's not javascript, but it's pretty cool

Calling attention to yourself now? You are way too late to be cool.

 

[Matt Kruse]

Actually there are other groups as well.  But one big one stands out
(for anyone with even minor experience scripting browsers.)

Well, either explain it or don't. I don't care. I'm curious (I like
puzzles), but your little games have become tiresome.

Whether it was simpler and more concise to use jQuery to set the
opacity of an element over time.  It ain't.

I don't recall asking such a question.

It just works!    Get a job in a side show.

Sounds fun, maybe I should!

Read it and contrast with your recent comments here.

Seeing as how I wrote both, I don't see anything to contrast.

Calling attention to yourself now?  

Nope, you did that. Thanks.

But really, do check it out - http://code.google.com/p/php-excel-reader/

I'm sure you could rip it apart just like you do jQuery!

You are way too late to be cool.

My daughter thinks otherwise. Oh, SNAP!

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

Well, either explain it or don't. I don't care. I'm curious (I like
puzzles), but your little games have become tiresome.

LOL. If you can't figure *that* out, then perhaps you need to take a
step back and reevaluate your position.

I don't recall asking such a question.

You mentioned both of those as simplifying factors. The question was
implied and clearly you did not know the answer.

Sounds fun, maybe I should!

I think you already have one.

Seeing as how I wrote both, I don't see anything to contrast.


Nope, you did that. Thanks.

I didn't mention your "PHP Excel Reader."

But really, do check it out -http://code.google.com/p/php-excel-reader/

I'm sure you could rip it apart just like you do jQuery!

Why do you invite me to shred your code when you will just whine about
it later?

My daughter thinks otherwise. Oh, SNAP!

If she only knew.

 

[Matt Kruse]

LOL.  If you can't figure *that* out, then perhaps you need to take a
step back and reevaluate your position.

Oh, I get it. It's an April Fool's joke. Hilarious.

You mentioned both of those as simplifying factors.  The question was
implied and clearly you did not know the answer.

No question was implied, but thanks.

I didn't mention your "PHP Excel Reader."

You just did. Thanks!

Why do you invite me to shred your code when you will just whine about
it later?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masochism

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

Oh, I get it. It's an April Fool's joke. Hilarious.

Nope.

[snip]