I'm hoping that they don't coat the balloons with a flamable doping, so that there's no chance of flaming zeplins of doom from falling out of the skies. It would bring a new meaning to the "Internet being down" though, wouldn't it?
That sounds a whole lot like a reference to the propaganda/nutcase theory that the Hindenburg only burned because of the paint on it. Maybe you should read this:
Step 4 is not valid. a^2=b^2 is not equivalent to a=b. a=b implies a^2=b^2, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the only thing you've proved is that if 1=2, 1=1.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
None of the original "AJAX" apps used any easy to use libraries or frameworks. That's all come later, and is obviously not what the term refers to, since it was coined before such things existed. XMLHttpRequest and the DOM are just APIs offered by the browser to Javascript. Using Javascript to "glue them together" is non-sensical, because there's NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM BUT JAVASCRIPT. And CSS still has nothing to do with any of this.
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
I don't know why you're providing arguments as to why I'm right, but thanks for doing it. You claimed using the DOM meant using XML. Yet here you have the specs treating HTML and XML as two different languages that can be used with the DOM. So the "XML" part of "AJAX" is still non-sensical.
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"? I don't think I did, which would be the equivalent of what you're saying. Or are you claiming that you use an "Ajax" to access your mail?
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages". This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM.
No, just... no. I know this is Slashdot, but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name.
If there *was* something that was combined in new ways you'd have a point, but AJAX is still just Javascript running in a web browser. It's more clever Javascript than we've been used to, but that doesn't make it special.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
DHTML is Javascript. Asynchronous message passing is Javascript. AJAX doesn't rely on CSS in any way.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
XMLHttpRequest doesn't necessarily use XML at all. Most AJAX apps don't use its XML capabilities. The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain.
Except I haven't done this for years. I jumped on the bandwagon along with everyone else when Google made the technique popular.
Reread my first post. I most definitely made a point, in my very first sentences.
OK.
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
A contentless first sentence, a paragraph of nonsense, which is what I was referring to, and an argument about "dominating mindshare". I must confess to not knowing what this means, but I'm guessing you mean "whatever name everybody else uses". That would be (since I see you like the latin-named fallacies) argumentum ad numerum, "if a lot of people believe it, it must be right!"
And, BTW, an ad hominem comment is far worse than using sarcasm to illustrate a point...
Who's using ad hominems? I've merely told you not to act stupid when you aren't. This is a personal attack now?
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Maybe that's what you thought, but it sure wasn't what you wrote. You wrote a bunch of ironic gibberish. If you want to have an argument, then state your opinion, and don't act like a retard.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
You refused to present your point, and I refused to second-guess what you wanted to say.
I know what AJAX "is". Don't tell me they can't be compared, I write these things myself. Hell, a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all. That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work. The only thing new is brining this to Javascript. That hardly deserves a whole new name.
As near as I can tell, yes. And, (if you need an argument from authority here to know I'm not just talking out of my ass) I've written apps that would fall under the term "AJAX", such as this:
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future.
"XMLHttpRequest" does not mean "XML". XMLHttpRequest is used much more often for HttpRequests than for XML. Most "AJAX" apps use another, more convenient format, like JS code.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
XMLHttpRequest is all about the HttpRequest and not really at all about the XML. Microsoft probably envisioned people would use it to load XML with, but there's no requirement that you do that, and most "AJAX" apps don't use XML, but some much more convenient format, such as pure JS code.
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt.
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence.
Why, exactly, do you need a new word for that? It's still just Javascript code. What would be the problem with this Slashdot story being named "Open Source Javascript Webmail"?
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is... And IM is just email... And cars are really just horseless carriages...
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all. Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
I call it "Javascript", because that's what it is - there's no need to make up new words. Especially when almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
"AJAX" is a retarded and non-sensical name made up by a consulting company who wanted to make themselves sound important. I can't believe you people are falling for it.
You may be too much of a wimp to come out and say it, but I'll say, with every bit of disrespect I can muster, that O0o0Oblubb!O0o0O has the dumbest fucking name ever, and the editors should have edited to something less dumb to spare my retinas from being imprinted with such concentrated idiocy.
I don't give a fuck who you agree with, I'm just calling you out for being an asshole who apparently thinks being among the first tens of thousands of people to sing up for a website makes you oh so special.
Yes, lets look at people's user ids when judging them, not what they actually say! Remember, the earlier you signed up, the more important your opinions are!
Yeah, well, gee, maybe all the people who are actually funny stay the fuck away from the media and fame, what do I know? It seems more likely people are JUST NOT FUNNY, though.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's anything like me, he uses a GUI editor, because nobody appears interested in making a text mode editor that doesn't suck horribly.
If I have to edit in text mode, I use pico or nano. They're bad, but nowhere near as painfully user-hostile as emacs or vi.
No, there is no way, mainly because the article is 100% bullshit. It's laughable that Slashdot is actually running this.
I'm hoping that they don't coat the balloons with a flamable doping, so that there's no chance of flaming zeplins of doom from falling out of the skies. It would bring a new meaning to the "Internet being down" though, wouldn't it?
0 5jan12.pdf
That sounds a whole lot like a reference to the propaganda/nutcase theory that the Hindenburg only burned because of the paint on it. Maybe you should read this:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire20
You're wrong in step 6 already. 1/i = -i.
Step 4 is not valid. a^2=b^2 is not equivalent to a=b. a=b implies a^2=b^2, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the only thing you've proved is that if 1=2, 1=1.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
None of the original "AJAX" apps used any easy to use libraries or frameworks. That's all come later, and is obviously not what the term refers to, since it was coined before such things existed. XMLHttpRequest and the DOM are just APIs offered by the browser to Javascript. Using Javascript to "glue them together" is non-sensical, because there's NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM BUT JAVASCRIPT. And CSS still has nothing to do with any of this.
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
I don't know why you're providing arguments as to why I'm right, but thanks for doing it. You claimed using the DOM meant using XML. Yet here you have the specs treating HTML and XML as two different languages that can be used with the DOM. So the "XML" part of "AJAX" is still non-sensical.
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM.
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"? I don't think I did, which would be the equivalent of what you're saying. Or are you claiming that you use an "Ajax" to access your mail?
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages". This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that
No, just... no. I know this is Slashdot, but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name.
If there *was* something that was combined in new ways you'd have a point, but AJAX is still just Javascript running in a web browser. It's more clever Javascript than we've been used to, but that doesn't make it special.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
DHTML is Javascript. Asynchronous message passing is Javascript. AJAX doesn't rely on CSS in any way.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
XMLHttpRequest doesn't necessarily use XML at all. Most AJAX apps don't use its XML capabilities. The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain.
Except I haven't done this for years. I jumped on the bandwagon along with everyone else when Google made the technique popular.
No.
Reread my first post. I most definitely made a point, in my very first sentences.
OK.
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
A contentless first sentence, a paragraph of nonsense, which is what I was referring to, and an argument about "dominating mindshare". I must confess to not knowing what this means, but I'm guessing you mean "whatever name everybody else uses". That would be (since I see you like the latin-named fallacies) argumentum ad numerum, "if a lot of people believe it, it must be right!"
And, BTW, an ad hominem comment is far worse than using sarcasm to illustrate a point...
Who's using ad hominems? I've merely told you not to act stupid when you aren't. This is a personal attack now?
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Maybe that's what you thought, but it sure wasn't what you wrote. You wrote a bunch of ironic gibberish. If you want to have an argument, then state your opinion, and don't act like a retard.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
You refused to present your point, and I refused to second-guess what you wanted to say.
I know what AJAX "is". Don't tell me they can't be compared, I write these things myself. Hell, a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all. That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work. The only thing new is brining this to Javascript. That hardly deserves a whole new name.
Are the two terms absolutely equivalent?
/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
As near as I can tell, yes. And, (if you need an argument from authority here to know I'm not just talking out of my ass) I've written apps that would fall under the term "AJAX", such as this:
http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl (login/pw is test/test)
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know
Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future.
"XMLHttpRequest" does not mean "XML". XMLHttpRequest is used much more often for HttpRequests than for XML. Most "AJAX" apps use another, more convenient format, like JS code.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
XMLHttpRequest is all about the HttpRequest and not really at all about the XML. Microsoft probably envisioned people would use it to load XML with, but there's no requirement that you do that, and most "AJAX" apps don't use XML, but some much more convenient format, such as pure JS code.
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt.
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence.
Why, exactly, do you need a new word for that? It's still just Javascript code. What would be the problem with this Slashdot story being named "Open Source Javascript Webmail"?
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is...
And IM is just email...
And cars are really just horseless carriages...
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all. Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
And what would your rather we call it?
0 2/23/1859222
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
And what magical consulting company is this?
Adaptive Path, and here's the original Slashdot article where they started the whole thing:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
It's a name that works for a useful technology.
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
I call it "Javascript", because that's what it is - there's no need to make up new words. Especially when almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
"AJAX" is a retarded and non-sensical name made up by a consulting company who wanted to make themselves sound important. I can't believe you people are falling for it.
You may be too much of a wimp to come out and say it, but I'll say, with every bit of disrespect I can muster, that O0o0Oblubb!O0o0O has the dumbest fucking name ever, and the editors should have edited to something less dumb to spare my retinas from being imprinted with such concentrated idiocy.
I don't give a fuck who you agree with, I'm just calling you out for being an asshole who apparently thinks being among the first tens of thousands of people to sing up for a website makes you oh so special.
No, you expressed surprise that someone would call a person with a low user id a troll. Let me just quote that for you:
OK, who the hell's calling a low-fives userid a Troll?
Yes, lets look at people's user ids when judging them, not what they actually say! Remember, the earlier you signed up, the more important your opinions are!
What a wonderful community!
Yeah, well, gee, maybe all the people who are actually funny stay the fuck away from the media and fame, what do I know? It seems more likely people are JUST NOT FUNNY, though.