Right... and everytime someone gets a virus, is forced to reboot, gets a blue screen of death, gets spammed (or whatever the error of the week is for Windows), they all jump up and shout 'Hallelujah! Praise Bill Gates!'
You are confusing validation and checking and since this is like the 9th post by an anonymous user who cannot get a clue, I;ll assume you are merely trolling. Good luck validating code client side and server side. I wish you the same redundancy in all your work.
First you say it isn;'t javascript and now you say it is javascript. Javascript which can be turned off. Javascript which can be bypassed.
And you claim that these MVC frameworks automatically duplicate your validation for you? Well I happen to know that Struts does NOT. I also happen to know that validation is specific to the application and perhaps even the database that the data is referenced to.
Hence, any validation you want to have in javascript on the client side would have to be custom built. CHECKING however is not... and CHECKING is what they do... NOT VALIDATION!
Get a clue and then learn the difference. One makes sure the data matches the data type that is required and the other makes sure that you aren't trying to do cross site scripting, sql insertion and OTHER stuff.
God, who is teaching you newbies that this shit is ok? Why not go ahead and do you SSL with javascript too while you are at it.
Yes... in a non-web standard that doesn't work in 25% of all browsers. Sounds like a real win. Duplicating your code AND having it fail for 25% of users. What a genius you are to be so innovatively useless. let me guess? Microsoft employee?
If they validate client side, it is with a client side language. And just because SOME people wish to maintain to sets of code that do the same thing doesn't make it smart. It makes it bad coding. I had this discussion with someone at Classmates.com and they said they stopped doing that for the reasons I discussed. And frameworks do not handle client side validation; you have to add that retarded stuff in yourself and duplicate your work on the client and server side.
And good luck building those cross browser compliant applications in ASP.NET. I always like to build websites where 25% of users can't view them. Even retards know better than to do web dev in Visual Basic.
That's great if you want to maintain code that does the exact same thing in two different areas. But instead, I suggest as many companies have done and instead do CHECKING (not VALIDATING) on the client side and then do validating on the server side. This allows for simple errors with the form to be caught prior to going to the server but for more complex checking and validating of form submission to be handled via the server.
You are trying to do too much client side. Just check the data to make sure it LOOKS correct and then validate and test data on the server side. Minor user errors are discovered quickly via client side code and potential hacks are found in server side code.
Thus two different code bases with different purposes... not two separate code bases with the same purpose; that's stupid. That's like building the CSS for your page and then including the HTML for fonts and colors and table padding anyway. Build code smarter not dumber.
I agree. It is nice but I have gotten into long discussions with developers who want to do validation via Javascript and then want to do it on BOTH ends thus having two areas where you have to update code. And I think the point where I comprimise is for data CHECKING (like making sure they are filling out a form properly and all required fields are entered).
You think javascript isn't the most integral part of AJAX? Let's see you use AJAX with something else? It's not the CSS or XML that's going to be rendering that page; they are only helpers.
Javascript is the grunt that does most of what AJAX is being raved about for. It's just another way to reinvigorate Javascript.
I've told people time and again that client side programming is only useful for display. Any scripting that can be turned off and make your applications useless or insecure is potentially a danger.
Sure, checking data before it is sent is nice but validating data is incorrect since that data can be changed without the script and sent to the server.
AJAX is just the latest craze like FLASH was and it has the same problems that FLASH does and as a result, is just a nice display layer that can be turned off.
Before people get all taken with AJAX they need to ask themselves 'what would happen if the client had javascript turned off or decided to bypass my javascript entirely?'.
// insert irony here Y'know you are so right. I am sick of these Slasdotters ragging on Microsoft for every little flaw. So what if their game system will burn down your house. So what if their OS will cause your identity to get stolen. It's like these people dn't realize that just because they purchased the product doesn't mean the company that manufactured it is responsible. Sheesh!
Next thing you know, they'll expect their food not to give them stomach poisoning or planes to be able to stay in the air?
Microsoft is a billion dollar corp and you guys are only lowly citizens of a corporately owned government. What the hell are you going to do about it?
Yes but when you shut off ActiveX in your Explorer browser, you are NOT shutting off COM so there IS a difference and thus ActiveX is still NOT a standard... especially not a web standard. The W3C has made their stance on ActiveX publicly known and they consider it a security nightmare.
Standardizing on crap would make the internet a fertilizer farm.
An interface standard? How is it a standard when no one uses it but Microsoft? Is it supported by the W3C? A standard of one isn't really a standard now is it.
And why has it not become a standard? Because due to several security problems inherent in ActiveX that Microsoft refuses to do anything about, few want to adopt it and no one wants to standardize on it.
Agreed. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term in that way. Just wanted to convey the plethora of bugs in Microsoft's apps in comparison to the Mozilla Foundation.
Wow. I even point you to a place that resells their statistical data and you can't even put two and two together?? Exactly how many paint chips HAVE you eaten today?
This may come as a shock to you but some companies make money off of collecting statistics. GASP! And then they resell those statistics. GASP GASP! And what are those statistics based on? Not surveys.
In your world, in order to release a report all someone has to do is ask 10 people what they think and the do a writeup to the scientific community. I'm beginning to think you REALLY ARE in the third grade if you can't understand scientific method.
Yes... 100% of their data is from surveys. You must be right cause you said so. Andf considering the fact that you more than likely didn't even try to find the data to see whether it WAS based on a survey or not, that must make you even MORE right.
Stop huffing exhaust fumes, you're getting dumber by the second.
I like my comments to have brief description and show example of usage to cover the 'hit by a train' scenario. Also with good comments, you don't require as much documentation... which is a shame because WE ALL LOVE to write documentation!/* getFunction(array,int);
desc: Function is described here
usage: this->getFunction(names,number); */
No. I think they slapdash oput something together and per the usual Microsoft way, will say it has more features than Google but not deliver any of them until a year after launch. Microsoft always delivers incomplete projects and this will be no exception. I guarantee that Google will have a better feature set for a long time to come.
Slashdot Mirror
There is redundancy. Learn to program. You probably just don't understand what the word means.
Right... and everytime someone gets a virus, is forced to reboot, gets a blue screen of death, gets spammed (or whatever the error of the week is for Windows), they all jump up and shout 'Hallelujah! Praise Bill Gates!'
You are confusing validation and checking and since this is like the 9th post by an anonymous user who cannot get a clue, I;ll assume you are merely trolling. Good luck validating code client side and server side. I wish you the same redundancy in all your work.
First you say it isn;'t javascript and now you say it is javascript. Javascript which can be turned off. Javascript which can be bypassed.
And you claim that these MVC frameworks automatically duplicate your validation for you? Well I happen to know that Struts does NOT. I also happen to know that validation is specific to the application and perhaps even the database that the data is referenced to.
Hence, any validation you want to have in javascript on the client side would have to be custom built. CHECKING however is not... and CHECKING is what they do... NOT VALIDATION!
Get a clue and then learn the difference. One makes sure the data matches the data type that is required and the other makes sure that you aren't trying to do cross site scripting, sql insertion and OTHER stuff.
God, who is teaching you newbies that this shit is ok? Why not go ahead and do you SSL with javascript too while you are at it.
Yes... in a non-web standard that doesn't work in 25% of all browsers. Sounds like a real win. Duplicating your code AND having it fail for 25% of users. What a genius you are to be so innovatively useless. let me guess? Microsoft employee?
If they validate client side, it is with a client side language. And just because SOME people wish to maintain to sets of code that do the same thing doesn't make it smart. It makes it bad coding. I had this discussion with someone at Classmates.com and they said they stopped doing that for the reasons I discussed. And frameworks do not handle client side validation; you have to add that retarded stuff in yourself and duplicate your work on the client and server side.
And good luck building those cross browser compliant applications in ASP.NET. I always like to build websites where 25% of users can't view them. Even retards know better than to do web dev in Visual Basic.
That's great if you want to maintain code that does the exact same thing in two different areas. But instead, I suggest as many companies have done and instead do CHECKING (not VALIDATING) on the client side and then do validating on the server side. This allows for simple errors with the form to be caught prior to going to the server but for more complex checking and validating of form submission to be handled via the server.
You are trying to do too much client side. Just check the data to make sure it LOOKS correct and then validate and test data on the server side. Minor user errors are discovered quickly via client side code and potential hacks are found in server side code.
Thus two different code bases with different purposes... not two separate code bases with the same purpose; that's stupid. That's like building the CSS for your page and then including the HTML for fonts and colors and table padding anyway. Build code smarter not dumber.
I agree. It is nice but I have gotten into long discussions with developers who want to do validation via Javascript and then want to do it on BOTH ends thus having two areas where you have to update code. And I think the point where I comprimise is for data CHECKING (like making sure they are filling out a form properly and all required fields are entered).
You think javascript isn't the most integral part of AJAX? Let's see you use AJAX with something else? It's not the CSS or XML that's going to be rendering that page; they are only helpers.
Javascript is the grunt that does most of what AJAX is being raved about for. It's just another way to reinvigorate Javascript.
I've told people time and again that client side programming is only useful for display. Any scripting that can be turned off and make your applications useless or insecure is potentially a danger.
Sure, checking data before it is sent is nice but validating data is incorrect since that data can be changed without the script and sent to the server.
AJAX is just the latest craze like FLASH was and it has the same problems that FLASH does and as a result, is just a nice display layer that can be turned off.
Before people get all taken with AJAX they need to ask themselves 'what would happen if the client had javascript turned off or decided to bypass my javascript entirely?'.
Unfortunately, that free commercials underlying message is: "Microsoft: sue all you want, we'll screw you more."
Y'know you are so right. I am sick of these Slasdotters ragging on Microsoft for every little flaw. So what if their game system will burn down your house. So what if their OS will cause your identity to get stolen. It's like these people dn't realize that just because they purchased the product doesn't mean the company that manufactured it is responsible. Sheesh!
Next thing you know, they'll expect their food not to give them stomach poisoning or planes to be able to stay in the air?
Microsoft is a billion dollar corp and you guys are only lowly citizens of a corporately owned government. What the hell are you going to do about it?
Yes but when you shut off ActiveX in your Explorer browser, you are NOT shutting off COM so there IS a difference and thus ActiveX is still NOT a standard... especially not a web standard. The W3C has made their stance on ActiveX publicly known and they consider it a security nightmare.
Standardizing on crap would make the internet a fertilizer farm.
COM perhaps but not ActiveX. ActiveX has yet to be standardized by ANYONE!
An interface standard? How is it a standard when no one uses it but Microsoft? Is it supported by the W3C? A standard of one isn't really a standard now is it.
And why has it not become a standard? Because due to several security problems inherent in ActiveX that Microsoft refuses to do anything about, few want to adopt it and no one wants to standardize on it.
A standard it is not.
I predict France surrendering to open source within the next week.
Agreed. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term in that way. Just wanted to convey the plethora of bugs in Microsoft's apps in comparison to the Mozilla Foundation.
From the mouth of the man who has figured out how all reports are made. Truly astounding
Wow. I even point you to a place that resells their statistical data and you can't even put two and two together?? Exactly how many paint chips HAVE you eaten today?
This may come as a shock to you but some companies make money off of collecting statistics. GASP! And then they resell those statistics. GASP GASP! And what are those statistics based on? Not surveys.
In your world, in order to release a report all someone has to do is ask 10 people what they think and the do a writeup to the scientific community. I'm beginning to think you REALLY ARE in the third grade if you can't understand scientific method.
You are comparing Microsoft's cargo ship full of oranges to Firefoxes handful of apples and you think this is relevant?
Yes... 100% of their data is from surveys. You must be right cause you said so. Andf considering the fact that you more than likely didn't even try to find the data to see whether it WAS based on a survey or not, that must make you even MORE right.
Stop huffing exhaust fumes, you're getting dumber by the second.
I like my comments to have brief description and show example of usage to cover the 'hit by a train' scenario. Also with good comments, you don't require as much documentation... which is a shame because WE ALL LOVE to write documentation! /* getFunction(array,int);
desc: Function is described here
usage: this->getFunction(names,number); */
No. I think they slapdash oput something together and per the usual Microsoft way, will say it has more features than Google but not deliver any of them until a year after launch. Microsoft always delivers incomplete projects and this will be no exception. I guarantee that Google will have a better feature set for a long time to come.
Evams Data Corp, retard. If you are literate beyond a third grade level, I suggest looking it up.