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

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by lorlarz, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    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/GuideInfoandPlanner/UniversalDD.htm

    Other examples of builders are on mynichecomputing.com
    A couple others are:

    http://mynichecomputing.com/hierMenu/HierMenuBuilder3.htm
    and

    http://mynichecomputing.com/linkGuider/:
     
    lorlarz, Jul 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. lorlarz

    Henry Guest

    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
     
    Henry, Jul 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. lorlarz

    Erwin Moller Guest

    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
     
    Erwin Moller, Jul 7, 2008
    #3
  4. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    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 <> 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, one realizes that one can build
    > generalized builders
    > of JavaScript applications.  One example is:
    >

    [snip]
     
    lorlarz, Jul 7, 2008
    #4
  5. 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$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 7, 2008
    #5
  6. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    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 <>
    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$1$>
     
    lorlarz, Jul 7, 2008
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 7, 2008
    #7
  8. lorlarz

    lorlarz Guest

    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 <>
    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$1$>
     
    lorlarz, Jul 8, 2008
    #8
  9. 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
     
    Gregor Kofler, Jul 8, 2008
    #9
  10. lorlarz

    Krukow Guest

    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?


    Kind Regards,
    - Karl
     
    Krukow, Jul 8, 2008
    #10
  11. 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
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 8, 2008
    #11
  12. lorlarz

    Henry Guest

    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.
     
    Henry, Jul 8, 2008
    #12
  13. lorlarz

    Henry Guest

    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.
     
    Henry, Jul 9, 2008
    #13
    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. Oliver Klein
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    721
    Oliver Klein
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Thomas
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    204
    Thomas
    Mar 3, 2005
  3. pantagruel
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    289
    pantagruel
    Aug 10, 2005
  4. Animesh K

    Share your views on unobtrusive javascript

    Animesh K, Jul 20, 2007, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    281
    David Mark
    Jul 30, 2007
  5. Animesh K

    Unobtrusive method for image resizing?

    Animesh K, Jul 26, 2007, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    119
    David Mark
    Jul 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page