Making a client side script Server Side

[Evertjan.]

Tim Greer wrote on 18 dec 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

No, I did not. You just _continue_ to claim I did, which doesn't
actually make it so.

your words:
"JavaScript is browser, rather than server-side,
unless you're using it in a framework."

Which is not true.

The thread speaks for itself, I clarified it and
admitted the wording was poor. I never said any of the things you
continue to accuse me of.

I am not accusing you, you just made a mistake.

You just like to argue.

Even if it were true, is that bad?

I argue you were mistaken, but will not admit to that.

Have you nothing better to do?

Thank you for being concerned about the way I spend muy time.

You'd honestly rather keep posting false accusations to
suit your argument,

No I am not accusing you.

fully knowing it's not true, all because you can't
accept what I actually said?

See above you were wrong.

The method you use to ignore what was
said and continue to argue, is sad.

Thank you for being concerned about my sadness, or are you sad for me?

It's clear your intent is to troll from the start.

Your guess, perhaps, so be it.
My intent cearly has nothing to do with if you made a mistake.
Is that your argument against your mistake?

============

My intent is to show that Javascript is not a browser-only language,
but has fare more platforms [not your mistaken wording "framework"] and
is especially useful by being able to use the same functions on different
platforms.

My intent is not to accuse you, but not to let your wrong notion go
unchallenged.

It seems you mistake this as being a war, since you use the word
"accused", wich is a pity, and wich I repeatedly tried to deflate.

 

[Tim Greer]

Tim Greer wrote on 18 dec 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:


your words:
"JavaScript is browser, rather than server-side,
unless you're using it in a framework."

The full post (my words):

"JavaScript is browser, rather than server-side, unless you're using it
in a framework.  Try SSI, PHP, or something else for server-side date
and time."

I have *repeatedly* stated I worded that poorly. I clarified what I
meant *several times*. WHY in the world would I say it was "only
browser related or else you have to use a framework" and THEN go on to
list SSI, PHP or something else (which are NOT frameworks). I worded
it *poorly*. You know very well what I meant by now, but you enjoy
arguing. There is no other reason for your behavior.

Which is not true.

Of course it's not true, which is why I mentioned SSI, PHP and other
options. I clarified later as well.

I am not accusing you, you just made a mistake.

I said I made a mistake in the wording. I've said that several times.
However, I did not make the mistake in what I knew or that there were
other options available to the OP.

Even if it were true, is that bad?

Yes, when you argue about things you falsely accuse people of.

I argue you were mistaken, but will not admit to that.

Because you are claiming I was mistaken in thinking JS was only browser
side or framework, which the very post itself goes on to list SSI, PHP,
or other options for getting JS to work server-side.

Thank you for being concerned about the way I spend muy time.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

No I am not accusing you.

You are.

See above you were wrong.

I was not.

Thank you for being concerned about my sadness, or are you sad for me?

Don't mistake an observation for emotion.

Your guess, perhaps, so be it.

It is fact and your actions support that fact.

Like I said, you're a troll. At least admit it.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Once again, I *never* said it was,

But you *had* at least implied it because of the *context* in which your
statement *had been* made. Given a number of regulars who agree with
this, I suggest again you leave it at that. For in the German-speaking
Usenet there is a saying (popularized by Christian Pree) that roughly
translates as follows:

"If one person in Usenet calls you an idiot, laugh at them. If several
people call you that who post rather good articles otherwise, you better
find yourself a nice place to hide your face." (In the German original:
"Wenn Dich im Usenet einer einen Esel nennt, lach ihn aus. Wenn es viele
tun, die ansonsten ganz vernünftige Beiträge schreiben, dann schau Dich
schon einmal nach einer Wiese mit saftigem Gras um.")

though you keep repeating the accusation.

I don't see a judge or a jury here, so it probably wasn't an accusation
in the first place.

[whining snipped]

You deem yourself as being too important. Probably someone has told you
this before.


PointedEars

 

[Tim Greer]

But you *had* at least implied it because of the *context* in which
your
statement *had been* made.

Yes, it was poorly worded, which could imply that, if you are willing to
dismiss the fact I mentioned PHP, SSI, and other options (which clearly
shows I didn't think it was "either browser or had to be in a
framework". I apologized for the poor wording and offered detailed
clarification. That should have been the end of the confusion, so from
here it's just arguing about nothing.

Given a number of regulars who agree with
this, I suggest again you leave it at that.

The number of regulars? It was you and one other person (that's two
people -- I've had more than that email me saying it's best to ignore
you). Anyway, it's sort of difficult to "leave it at that" when you
two are so persistent on making accusations that compel me to respond
to once again offer clarification.

I don't see a judge or a jury here, so it probably wasn't an
accusation in the first place.

Those variables are not what dictates an accusation.

[whining snipped]

I assume that was your own quoted text that you snipped.

You deem yourself as being too important. Probably someone has told
you this before.

Once again, we're back to Pot -> kettle. The fact is, you can't stand
the thought that I didn't cower to you. What are you, the local
newsgroup bully? To continually pick on someone and act like you own
the group, is not just strange, but says that you can't recognize that
you're the very thing you are saying about me.

Only someone with such an ego problem would actually think someone
believes they are more important than they are, all because they don't
put up with your nonsense. Here's news for you. You don't own me or
this group. Deal with it. Your actions here are unfounded, atrocious,
and the actions of a coward.

 

[Tim Greer]

But you *had* at least implied it because of the *context* in which
your
statement *had been* made.

Yes, it was poorly worded, which could imply that, if you are willing to
dismiss the fact I mentioned PHP, SSI, and other options (which clearly
shows I didn't think it was "either browser or had to be in a
framework".  I apologized for the poor wording and offered detailed
clarification.  That should have been the end of the confusion, so from
here it's just arguing about nothing.

Given a number of regulars who agree with
this, I suggest again you leave it at that.

The number of regulars?  It was you and one other person (that's two
people -- I've had more than that email me saying it's best to ignore
you).  Anyway, it's sort of difficult to "leave it at that" when you
two are so persistent on making accusations that compel me to respond
to once again offer clarification.

I don't see a judge or a jury here, so it probably wasn't an
accusation in the first place.

Those variables are not what dictates an accusation.
 

[whining snipped]

I assume that was your own quoted text that you snipped.

You deem yourself as being too important.  Probably someone has told
you this before.

Once again, we're back to Pot -> kettle.  The fact is, you can't stand
the thought that I didn't cower to you.  What are you, the local
newsgroup bully?  To continually pick on someone and act like you own
the group, is not just strange, but says that you can't recognize that
you're the very thing you are saying about me.

Only someone with such an ego problem would actually think someone
believes they are more important than they are, all because they don't
put up with your nonsense.  Here's news for you.  You don't own me or
this group.  Deal with it.  Your actions here are unfounded, atrocious,
and the actions of a coward. I could ask what you want out of all of
this, but I doubt even you know.

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

On 2008-12-18 19:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

This page doesn't give any reason not to use short_open_tag.

“[…] requires short_open_tag to be on.â€

It’s not hard to figure out that this is not exactly going to help
writing portable code. Configurability of this directive is version
dependant, too (‘it works for me’).

And yes, it’s fun when a project is put on an arbitrary live server for
client review last minute and half the stuff doesn’t appear to work
because some smart-ass in the team knows everything better.

 

[Tim Greer]

On 2008-12-18 19:37, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: [restored quotation]
PHP's "short_open_tag 1" should not be used in a production
environment because that has drawbacks:

<http://php.net/ini.core>

This page doesn't give any reason not to use short_open_tag.

“[…] requires short_open_tag to be on.â€

It’s not hard to figure out that this is not exactly going to help
writing portable code. Configurability of this directive is version
dependant, too (‘it works for me’).

Thomas said the short_open_tag option should not be set on production
servers, and that's what I was referring to. If the server
configuration is not under your control, the whole point is moot, and
we obviously have to use the more verbose <?php form to be safe.


- Conrad

I agree. Be safe when creating the code by using <?php, but if you're a
server admin, you should probably always enable short tags (unless you
have a good reason not to). Conrad seems to have suggested to enable
short tags to prevent that issue, not to suggest people should use
short tags.

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Thomas said the short_open_tag option should not be set on production
servers,

I know, and I agree.

and that's what I was referring to. If the server configuration
is not under your control, the whole point is moot, and we obviously
have to use the more verbose <?php form to be safe.

Even if it works when you deploy it, it can break with an upgrade,
server migration and whatnot. I don’t know what ‘production’ and
‘control’ mean in your book. The server can be updated (and stuff break)
while I’m on holiday, although I’m in control to travel back and fix it
in my own time.

This is stuff that really happens, and it belongs in the ‘I told you so’
category.