Why don't you drop the charade and log in? I think we all know who you are, doc.
Well, as I recall, the bulk of the conversation was about your Nuclear Space Drive conversation
Funny thing. I posted a "yay, nuclear space drive!" post, and yet practically none of that thread is about nuclear space drives. In fact, it would seem that nearly the entire thread attempts to prove how "Bush [is] throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions". Heavy on anti-Bush comments, low on actual attempts to talk about nuclear space drives. Wonder why?
I think you have this misconceived notion that Slashdot has one liberal mentality.
Oh no. In fact, I know there are a great many people who agree with me. However, when a large portion of Slashdot comes down on a particular side, people take notice. And it's what gives Slashdot a poor reputation as being reactionary. Especially when wild and accusatory comments like this or this are made at +2 by respected members of the community. Members who seem to have forgotten that people have differing opinions, rather than all being secret spies and collborators for Evil Entity X(TM). And they stir up quite a ruckus in their efforts, leading others to believe that the pro-Evil Entity Cabal really exists.
Or just as bad, threads that suppose that the actual policy of the President and the government is different from what the official document said.
Mr. "AC", you wish to accuse me of not accepting that others have opinions. (Which is particularly amusing when you link to a post where I state, "You have your opinion and I have mine.") Yet you fail to recognize that there was a LOT of posters who fell on the side of opposition to the space policy. A LOT of posters who now have a chance to reevaluate that position. Should we just ignore the progress made on the topic, or should we leave the topic closed? After all, this very article is a continuation of that topic.
What do you think? Should we just all stick our heads in the sand, or should we face these issues head on? See if we were correct? See if things change? See if our own opinions change?
I don't know about you, but I know that my own opinions have changed quite a bit over time. Not on this particular issue, mind you, but on many other hot topics. For example, I may have never liked the Patriot Act, but I did once argue that our government had (amazingly) not abused it to date. Well, a recent Slashdot story proved me wrong. (Yes, bolded so that you may gloat in silence.) While there was no intent to abuse it, it was abused because it was a form of power. And as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now, shall we all reevaluate our positions on this particular situation?:)
Seems the author of the article reads Slashdot. Anyone remember back when the "official U.S. position on space weapons" story broke? As I recall, there was a torrent of comments (especially from those who failed to read the document) suggesting that the space policy was that only the U.S. was going to have access to space. Some even went as far as to suggest that just because it's not in the "official" document, that it was the actual policy regardless of what the public part of the document stated.
Well, here's The Space Review's take on it:
2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile, which translates to pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground infrastructure.
Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right "to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes," and that it claimed the right (some say "tacitly") for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: "They [the US] want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there."
But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to "deny" access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most alarmingly stark terms.
On another topic, the author makes a very good point about the 1967 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. i.e. The same treaty that is credited with preventing the development of the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion vehicle. As item 9 points out, the Soviets had continued nuclear space development in violation of a treaty that had been signed specifically to prevent them from doing that. The Polyus ASAT Platform that was launched on the back of the first Energia in 1987 (and thankfully failed to make orbit) was intended to have nuclear weapon capabilities. The translations of the Polyus diagrams show that it would have carried "Nuclear Space Mines" to target and destroy missiles and satellites.
Good grief. This guy sounds like a real winner. I can see how his attempts to claim his "credentials" were nothing more than a cloak of anonymity would be angering to a few people. Misusing and abusing non-existent credentials like that is not acceptable in any forum of discussion. Not even Wikipedia.
I saw this story on my Wii last night, and read the story here. But what I'm still not clear on is how Essajays "credentials" helped him? AFAIK, the current policy of Wikipedia is to cite an authoritive source for every bit of information added. Even if an MIT professor of Physics comes in and writes an article on Relativity, he's still required to cite some sort of professionally published and/or peer reviewed document to back up the claims he makes in the article. This is to protect against the possibility of original research. (A major no-no on Wikipedia.)
Was this a breakdown in that process? Were other users trusting him "just because" he claimed these credentials?
What exactly is a "trained Ufologist"? As far as I'm aware, there are no degrees or otherwise officially recognized courses that would lend themselves to being referred to as "training" Ufologists. Which means that most Ufologists are of the self-taught persuasion.
Not that I'd mind being proven wrong. I'm just not aware of such a thing as you describe.
Those are all things we take care of in-store most of the time. It really varies by the model, but I have repaired all of those things in the past week.
That's impressive. My Apple Store (NMA) has never once been able to fix those sorts of problems in-house. It always has to get shipped out. About the only thing they've been able to do in-house (in my experience) was install user-installable components like RAM chips and wireless cards.
And when I was talking "business" I really meant "small business" not "enterprise."
That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. But what the Slashdot article (at least appear to be) about is corporate support. When we say "business" in this context, we don't really mean SOHO support. Most SOHOs can't afford an on-site technology staff, and either manage it themselves or turn to consultants for support. Since this fellow appears to be dedicated support staff, I think it's somewhat safe to assume that he's not SOHO.
You really shouldn't take offense at this. You guys do provide excellent service, but the problem is that the type of people on Slashdot are a cut above the average person who comes to your store. If they're bringing a computer in, it almost certainly requires physical servicing of some sort. The type of servicing that you need to ship the computer out for. As a result, every servicing I've done with you geniuses (Sorry, sorry, it's just too easy.:P) has required that the unit be shipped out for a week or two of repair.
The problem with business users is that they are used to and/or need contracts that provide faster turnaround than that. They need a broken server repaired within 4 hours, guaranteed. And they DON'T want to hear that you are backordered on parts. They're slightly more lenient on Desktop systems, but not by much. They generally expect a 24-48 hour turnaround on anything they can't fix themselves. Generally with minimal amounts of their time wasted. Which means that you're not going to be dealing with someone who accidently deleted the MS Office X.APPs folders. You're going to be dealing with a fried ethernet port, a bad logic chip, an unresponsive DVD drive, a non-functional display, or a variety of other problems you can't fix at the 'bar.
I say this because it's the truth: The Genius Bar is not designed to handle corporate needs. Period, end of story.
Otherwise, I love the service you provide. Even if you can't do anything more than say, "We'll have to ship this off", at least it has a personal touch to it.
BTW, which store are you in? It wouldn't be the Michigan Ave. one, would it?
If I'd shown them the Prototype method, I would have royally confused them. The inline method uses more memory, but it's much closer, syntactically, to what most people think of as an "object".
Who exactly invited you to paste your default JavaScript rant here, simlpy because the article is about a JavaScript book?
1. It's not a default "cut and paste" rant. It's one I made just for this article.;-)
2. That "Reply" button looked awefully inviting...
If truly you're wondering why I suddenly broke into a rant, it's because I've seen these articles too many times. Everyone assumes they already know Javascript, ergo, this book is not targeted at them. Well, someone needed to burst their bubble. Just look at the responses past my own! "Javascript is so easy it doesn't need a book" and "all you need is [insert crutch] library?" I'd say these people have a LOT to learn!
Both the DOM API and innerHTML have their place
I will agree that innerHTML has an occasional place. But not as an override to the DOM. Rather, it's much more useful in enhancing the scripabilty of the DOM. For example, when you highlight a section of text in Mozilla and request "View Selection Source". Being able to see the innerHTML snippet is very useful. It is also useful in serializing and deserializing HTML snippets.
Outside such specialized situations, it is NOT useful in dynamically modifying the HTML. In fact, it becomes a very dangerous tool capable of causing its user much harm. (Which it regularly does.) Yet it's still the most popular method of modifiying the DOM!
even eval() (yes OMGWTFBBQ!! I suck!!) can be useful for plenty of purposes
"eval()" has all kinds of wonderful uses! For example, it's great if you serialize a data object using "toSource", then deserialize it using "var x = eval(source);" Obviously it provides a great deal of power that can be (and is) abused. Thankfully, it's not abused too often.
It's much more important to open people's eyes to the mistakes they make daily. For example, a failure to use the DOM 2 Event model can cause all kinds of problems. Not the least of which is competing event handlers that overwrite one another.
You're simply repeating well known cliches here, and for what purpose exactly?
Hey, now. They're far from cliche, yet. There's still a huge problem out there of coders misusing and abusing Javascript because they think they know how to program in it. I'm hoping that seeing what they're doing wrong will open a few eyes.
A pseudo good developer simply repeats what his buddies told him is "better" and what is "lame".
Nice shot. But you missed.;)
While you have a point for the multiple events, what does "portable" mean to you?
I was referring to code portability. Using the DOM 2 Event system allows your code to be properly encapsualted in its own little world. That allows for the construction of libraries that don't much care about other libraries you might be using. The DOM 0 event system is an all-or-nothing approach that causes no end to pain and suffering.
FWIW, it's possible to make the DOM 2 system fully portable across browsers. (Which is to say, FIX that #@!$@!!! excuse for an upgrade that Microsoft calls Internet Explorer 7.) The trick is to dynamically patch IE's DOM before any other libraries are called. There's a fairly good library for that here. There are actually quite a few more out there, but I'm not going to dig them up just now.
I advise you to take a look at the ECMA4 proposal (implemented in Flash 9 as "ActionScript 3", which is also reference implementation for JavaScript 2).
Funny, I was just mentioning that to another poster elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps my post was what gave you this idea?;-)
BTW, Flash implements most of ECMAScript 4.0 in ActionScript 2.0. Which is Flash version 7.
You're right, Javascript is a good language with an unfortunate reputation, but it ain't object oriented.
You don't need a class/method design to be object oriented. Only the OO purists are dead-set on that. OOP is a style of programming, with some languages providing first-class support while other's do not. Nearly every language can be coded in an OO-manner to some degree. Javascript, thankfully, got fairly decent support from the get-go despite its intended use as procedural scripting. That makes a big difference when doing DHTML/AJAX scripts today.
However, if you happen to be an OO purist, you'll be happy to know that ECMAScript 4.0 (and related Javascript 2.0) provides first-class support for objects. Proper object definitions, optional typing, static properties, access control, the whole shebang. Technically, the spec is still being reviewed. But at least one engine decided to jump the gun. ActionScript 2.0 (aka Adobe Flash) already supports these features. The code for that engine is being used to construct Tamarin, the next generation of Mozilla Javascript engine. =)
An object-oriented design can be implemented on any platform.
Indeed it can. However, Javascript was built with OOP in mind. Its multiple paths through everything is a nod to the fact that it's still a scripting language. i.e. Designed for a blend of brevity, flexibility, and fast interpretation. That's why Javascript has about three different methods to do everything.
Because sometimes:
var myobj = {a:10, b:"Hello World!", c:function(){var x = ""; for(var i=0; i<this.a; i++) x += b+"\n"; return x;};
is preferrable over:
function MyObject() {
this.a = 10;
this.b = "Hello World!";
this.c = function()
{
var x = "";
for(var i=0; i<this.a; i++) x += b+"\n";
return x;
}; }
var myobj = new MyObject();
It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Javascript gives you the most flexibility in exchange for somewhat "soft" semantics. Such is life.
"Javascript is object oriented? I didn't know that.", but nobody seems keen to tell anyone else
The frightening part is that it's not that obscure. The Client-Side Guide that Netscape used to publish (up until the ECMA standard was established), has several detailed sections on written OOP code in Javascript. Including multiple methods for handling inheritence! The problem is that no one read Netscape's documentation. Everyone "learned" Javascript by modifying some poorly-written script they found on the Internet, just so they could make text scroll across the status bar of the web browser.
And then developers wonder why they never knew XYZ about Javascript.:-/
Anyone want to guess what happens when "equation" is equal to "x
is supposed to say this:
domelement.innerHTML = "<p>"+equation+"</p>";
Anyone want to guess what happens when "equation" is equal to "x < y"? (Hint: Nothing good.)
Just more proof of why coding for the DOM is a good idea. Microsoft's extension crud may seem convenient at the moment, but it's just hurting you in the long run.
Developers of Web sites are oftentimes impressed by the more advanced functionality that can be achieved on a Web page using JavaScript. Yet these personal discoveries of JavaScript's power do not always motivate the developers to implement similar functionality on their own sites
If I may make a supposition, this occurs most often because programmers think they know how to program in Javascript, but don't have the first clue. That's why we see lots of code like:
<body onKeyDown="doSomeStuff()">
Or:
domelement.innerHTML = "<p>"+equation+"</p>";
Anyone want to guess what happens when "equation" is equal to "x
^^-Seems more complex, but does not suffer from special character issues -AND- can be far less code when used in well-written algorithms.
Then there are people who do this:
for(i=0; i<10; i++) doSomething(i);
I hope you don't have a loop in doSomething, because you may accidently modify the global variable "i". The correct solution is to make it a local variable like this:
for(var i=0; i<10; i++) doSomething(i);
Lastly, people complain that Javascript isn't Object Oriented. To which I can only act annoyed. What is this?
It's a set of videos showing Javascript games in development for the Nintendo Wii. Nothing special here, just Javascript + Canvas. The Tetris game even has a demo here:
Apple was originally going to do the same on their 17" PowerBooks, but they killed the idea for a simple reason: Adding the number pad forced the keyboard to shift to one side. Which ruined the ergonomics of the device, and generally required that users type in an unbalanced configuration. (Not so good when you're using it on your lap.) That's why the 17" PowerBooks all had that odd space around the keyboard area.
forgot to be clear that I meant the state of laptops when the technology was new.
Fair enough.:)
However, I'd like to point out that the sub-notebook market is anything but new. In fact, it's been around for over a decade. The problem is not one of technology. It's one of practicality. These devices are not practical computers. Which makes paying exhorbant sums of money for them... well, impractical.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing. I posted a "yay, nuclear space drive!" post, and yet practically none of that thread is about nuclear space drives. In fact, it would seem that nearly the entire thread attempts to prove how "Bush [is] throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions". Heavy on anti-Bush comments, low on actual attempts to talk about nuclear space drives. Wonder why?
Oh no. In fact, I know there are a great many people who agree with me. However, when a large portion of Slashdot comes down on a particular side, people take notice. And it's what gives Slashdot a poor reputation as being reactionary. Especially when wild and accusatory comments like this or this are made at +2 by respected members of the community. Members who seem to have forgotten that people have differing opinions, rather than all being secret spies and collborators for Evil Entity X(TM). And they stir up quite a ruckus in their efforts, leading others to believe that the pro-Evil Entity Cabal really exists.
Or just as bad, threads that suppose that the actual policy of the President and the government is different from what the official document said.
Mr. "AC", you wish to accuse me of not accepting that others have opinions. (Which is particularly amusing when you link to a post where I state, "You have your opinion and I have mine.") Yet you fail to recognize that there was a LOT of posters who fell on the side of opposition to the space policy. A LOT of posters who now have a chance to reevaluate that position. Should we just ignore the progress made on the topic, or should we leave the topic closed? After all, this very article is a continuation of that topic.
What do you think? Should we just all stick our heads in the sand, or should we face these issues head on? See if we were correct? See if things change? See if our own opinions change?
I don't know about you, but I know that my own opinions have changed quite a bit over time. Not on this particular issue, mind you, but on many other hot topics. For example, I may have never liked the Patriot Act, but I did once argue that our government had (amazingly) not abused it to date. Well, a recent Slashdot story proved me wrong. (Yes, bolded so that you may gloat in silence.) While there was no intent to abuse it, it was abused because it was a form of power. And as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now, shall we all reevaluate our positions on this particular situation?
Well, here's The Space Review's take on it:
On another topic, the author makes a very good point about the 1967 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. i.e. The same treaty that is credited with preventing the development of the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion vehicle. As item 9 points out, the Soviets had continued nuclear space development in violation of a treaty that had been signed specifically to prevent them from doing that. The Polyus ASAT Platform that was launched on the back of the first Energia in 1987 (and thankfully failed to make orbit) was intended to have nuclear weapon capabilities. The translations of the Polyus diagrams show that it would have carried "Nuclear Space Mines" to target and destroy missiles and satellites.
So much for that treaty.
Good grief. This guy sounds like a real winner. I can see how his attempts to claim his "credentials" were nothing more than a cloak of anonymity would be angering to a few people. Misusing and abusing non-existent credentials like that is not acceptable in any forum of discussion. Not even Wikipedia.
I saw this story on my Wii last night, and read the story here. But what I'm still not clear on is how Essajays "credentials" helped him? AFAIK, the current policy of Wikipedia is to cite an authoritive source for every bit of information added. Even if an MIT professor of Physics comes in and writes an article on Relativity, he's still required to cite some sort of professionally published and/or peer reviewed document to back up the claims he makes in the article. This is to protect against the possibility of original research. (A major no-no on Wikipedia.)
Was this a breakdown in that process? Were other users trusting him "just because" he claimed these credentials?
I don't follow.
Indeed. :-)
Technically distance is just a technicality. For the real differences, let's talk Delta V.
What exactly is a "trained Ufologist"? As far as I'm aware, there are no degrees or otherwise officially recognized courses that would lend themselves to being referred to as "training" Ufologists. Which means that most Ufologists are of the self-taught persuasion.
Not that I'd mind being proven wrong. I'm just not aware of such a thing as you describe.
That's impressive. My Apple Store (NMA) has never once been able to fix those sorts of problems in-house. It always has to get shipped out. About the only thing they've been able to do in-house (in my experience) was install user-installable components like RAM chips and wireless cards.
That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. But what the Slashdot article (at least appear to be) about is corporate support. When we say "business" in this context, we don't really mean SOHO support. Most SOHOs can't afford an on-site technology staff, and either manage it themselves or turn to consultants for support. Since this fellow appears to be dedicated support staff, I think it's somewhat safe to assume that he's not SOHO.
Of course, I've been wrong before.
You really shouldn't take offense at this. You guys do provide excellent service, but the problem is that the type of people on Slashdot are a cut above the average person who comes to your store. If they're bringing a computer in, it almost certainly requires physical servicing of some sort. The type of servicing that you need to ship the computer out for. As a result, every servicing I've done with you geniuses (Sorry, sorry, it's just too easy. :P) has required that the unit be shipped out for a week or two of repair.
.APPs folders. You're going to be dealing with a fried ethernet port, a bad logic chip, an unresponsive DVD drive, a non-functional display, or a variety of other problems you can't fix at the 'bar.
The problem with business users is that they are used to and/or need contracts that provide faster turnaround than that. They need a broken server repaired within 4 hours, guaranteed. And they DON'T want to hear that you are backordered on parts. They're slightly more lenient on Desktop systems, but not by much. They generally expect a 24-48 hour turnaround on anything they can't fix themselves. Generally with minimal amounts of their time wasted. Which means that you're not going to be dealing with someone who accidently deleted the MS Office X
I say this because it's the truth: The Genius Bar is not designed to handle corporate needs. Period, end of story.
Otherwise, I love the service you provide. Even if you can't do anything more than say, "We'll have to ship this off", at least it has a personal touch to it.
BTW, which store are you in? It wouldn't be the Michigan Ave. one, would it?
If I'd shown them the Prototype method, I would have royally confused them. The inline method uses more memory, but it's much closer, syntactically, to what most people think of as an "object".
:)
Ah well, at least someone's keeping me honest.
1. It's not a default "cut and paste" rant. It's one I made just for this article. ;-)
2. That "Reply" button looked awefully inviting...
If truly you're wondering why I suddenly broke into a rant, it's because I've seen these articles too many times. Everyone assumes they already know Javascript, ergo, this book is not targeted at them. Well, someone needed to burst their bubble. Just look at the responses past my own! "Javascript is so easy it doesn't need a book" and "all you need is [insert crutch] library?" I'd say these people have a LOT to learn!
I will agree that innerHTML has an occasional place. But not as an override to the DOM. Rather, it's much more useful in enhancing the scripabilty of the DOM. For example, when you highlight a section of text in Mozilla and request "View Selection Source". Being able to see the innerHTML snippet is very useful. It is also useful in serializing and deserializing HTML snippets.
Outside such specialized situations, it is NOT useful in dynamically modifying the HTML. In fact, it becomes a very dangerous tool capable of causing its user much harm. (Which it regularly does.) Yet it's still the most popular method of modifiying the DOM!
"eval()" has all kinds of wonderful uses! For example, it's great if you serialize a data object using "toSource", then deserialize it using "var x = eval(source);" Obviously it provides a great deal of power that can be (and is) abused. Thankfully, it's not abused too often.
It's much more important to open people's eyes to the mistakes they make daily. For example, a failure to use the DOM 2 Event model can cause all kinds of problems. Not the least of which is competing event handlers that overwrite one another.
Hey, now. They're far from cliche, yet. There's still a huge problem out there of coders misusing and abusing Javascript because they think they know how to program in it. I'm hoping that seeing what they're doing wrong will open a few eyes.
Nice shot. But you missed. ;)
I was referring to code portability. Using the DOM 2 Event system allows your code to be properly encapsualted in its own little world. That allows for the construction of libraries that don't much care about other libraries you might be using. The DOM 0 event system is an all-or-nothing approach that causes no end to pain and suffering.
FWIW, it's possible to make the DOM 2 system fully portable across browsers. (Which is to say, FIX that #@!$@!!! excuse for an upgrade that Microsoft calls Internet Explorer 7.) The trick is to dynamically patch IE's DOM before any other libraries are called. There's a fairly good library for that here. There are actually quite a few more out there, but I'm not going to dig them up just now.
Funny, I was just mentioning that to another poster elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps my post was what gave you this idea? ;-)
BTW, Flash implements most of ECMAScript 4.0 in ActionScript 2.0. Which is Flash version 7.
That is exactly the case. Here's a bit of test code for you to try: And how many times does the alert pop up? (Hint: It's not 10.)
Really, my dear AC. If you're going to lecture others about JavaScript scoping, at least have some idea about how it works yourself.
1. 2. 3. But congratulations on almost getting one right. (Insert eye rolling here.)
Well, there's a library for one of the alternate forms of inheritence. (A form which is unnecessary in most situations.) Yippee.
You don't need a class/method design to be object oriented. Only the OO purists are dead-set on that. OOP is a style of programming, with some languages providing first-class support while other's do not. Nearly every language can be coded in an OO-manner to some degree. Javascript, thankfully, got fairly decent support from the get-go despite its intended use as procedural scripting. That makes a big difference when doing DHTML/AJAX scripts today.
However, if you happen to be an OO purist, you'll be happy to know that ECMAScript 4.0 (and related Javascript 2.0) provides first-class support for objects. Proper object definitions, optional typing, static properties, access control, the whole shebang. Technically, the spec is still being reviewed. But at least one engine decided to jump the gun. ActionScript 2.0 (aka Adobe Flash) already supports these features. The code for that engine is being used to construct Tamarin, the next generation of Mozilla Javascript engine. =)
One of the "hacks" for class/methods, please. Of course, I already posted a couple when responding to another AC, so it's a bit too easy now. :-/
Indeed it can. However, Javascript was built with OOP in mind. Its multiple paths through everything is a nod to the fact that it's still a scripting language. i.e. Designed for a blend of brevity, flexibility, and fast interpretation. That's why Javascript has about three different methods to do everything.
Because sometimes: is preferrable over: It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Javascript gives you the most flexibility in exchange for somewhat "soft" semantics. Such is life.
The frightening part is that it's not that obscure. The Client-Side Guide that Netscape used to publish (up until the ECMA standard was established), has several detailed sections on written OOP code in Javascript. Including multiple methods for handling inheritence! The problem is that no one read Netscape's documentation. Everyone "learned" Javascript by modifying some poorly-written script they found on the Internet, just so they could make text scroll across the status bar of the web browser.
And then developers wonder why they never knew XYZ about Javascript.
Browser: "This script appears to be running slowly. Would you like to kill it?"
Me: "Yes<click>, please"
Browser: "Would you like me to smack balbord while I'm at it?"
Me: "Yes<click>, please"
(Okay, so that last part doesn't really happen. But there's always hope in the next version of Firefox!)
Typical.
If you know it so well, then please name at least two different methods of for creating your own objects in OOP-style Javascript. Ready? Go!
is supposed to say this:
Just more proof of why coding for the DOM is a good idea. Microsoft's extension crud may seem convenient at the moment, but it's just hurting you in the long run.
If I may make a supposition, this occurs most often because programmers think they know how to program in Javascript, but don't have the first clue. That's why we see lots of code like: Or: Anyone want to guess what happens when "equation" is equal to "x ^^-Much more portable as it can be constrained to a single JS file without overriding the ability of other code to receive events. ^^-Seems more complex, but does not suffer from special character issues -AND- can be far less code when used in well-written algorithms.
Then there are people who do this: I hope you don't have a loop in doSomething, because you may accidently modify the global variable "i". The correct solution is to make it a local variable like this: Lastly, people complain that Javascript isn't Object Oriented. To which I can only act annoyed. What is this? If that still doesn't convince you to take another look at Javascript, well maybe this will:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=thewiirocks
It's a set of videos showing Javascript games in development for the Nintendo Wii. Nothing special here, just Javascript + Canvas. The Tetris game even has a demo here:
http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/
Make sure you have a browser that doesn't suck.
I hope you all consider taking another look at Javascript. Maybe this book is for you, maybe it isn't. But there is a LOT of potential to release.
This is actually a 1024x600 screen. So prepare to squint.
Apple was originally going to do the same on their 17" PowerBooks, but they killed the idea for a simple reason: Adding the number pad forced the keyboard to shift to one side. Which ruined the ergonomics of the device, and generally required that users type in an unbalanced configuration. (Not so good when you're using it on your lap.) That's why the 17" PowerBooks all had that odd space around the keyboard area.
Fair enough.
However, I'd like to point out that the sub-notebook market is anything but new. In fact, it's been around for over a decade. The problem is not one of technology. It's one of practicality. These devices are not practical computers. Which makes paying exhorbant sums of money for them... well, impractical.