They are NOT the same thing. The JS forEach() is a method of the Array object, and is basically an analogue to PHP's array_walk() function.
If you want something similar to PHP's foreach, you can use for... in.
As I've remarked in another post, implementing these methods in a cross-browser and forward-compatible fashion is not difficult if you know what you're doing:
if(!Array.forEach) {
function Array_forEach(func)
{
for(var i = 0; i < this.length; i++)
this[i] = func(this[i]);
}
Array.prototype.forEach = Array_forEach; }
if(!Array.map) {
function Array_map(func)
{
var output = [];
for(var i = 0; i < this.length; i++)
output.push( func(this[i]) );
return output;
}
Array.prototype.map = Array_map; }
if(!Array.filter) {
function Array_filter(func)
{
var output = [];
for(var i = 0; i < this.length; i++)
if( func(this[i]) )
output.push(this[i]);
var copied = test.map(timesFive); alert("Array copied/modified via map(): " + copied.toString());// [25, 50, 75, 100, 125]
var filtered = test.filter(isOdd); alert("Array filtered using isOdd(): " + filtered.toString());// [5, 15, 25]
You've now just implemented these methods for browsers that don't support them, and they won't break in a JS interpreter that *does* have native support for them. I've used a bunch of array methods that I stole from PHP and Python in this way for ages.
Works in any browser that supports JS 1.2 and up. Tested in Mozilla/Linux, FireFox/Windows, FireFox/FreeBSD, Konqueror/Linux, Konqueror/FreeBSD, Opera/Linux, Opera/Windows, and even MSIE.
That wasn't so hard, now, was it?
(I will leave passing in parameters to the called functions as an exercise for the interested reader.)
Many of the new Array methods are similar to methods I've written myself and used for years. Admittedly the methods themselves aren't part of the ECMA spec, but object extension via prototyping is a core feature of the language. It shouldn't be difficult to implement them on your own for other browsers.
They'll just run a bit faster in Mozilla/FireFox, is all, since they'll be run as part of the interpreter rather than as interpreted code.
Most of the other stuff is based on W3C standards.
Short version: I'll continue to do cool stuff quickly in Moz and spend time writing workarounds for MSIE, just like I've been doing for the last 4-5 years. Nothing particularly new about that.
That's exactly how they're treated by society, law, and business.
That doesn't necessarily make it right, even if it's true. Which isn't necessarily the case: that's like saying that the customary treatment by many Americans of dark-skinned humans as chattel in the 18th and 19th Centuries was evidence that this practise was therefore "right" and that the 14th Amendment ought never to have been adopted.
In short, "It is" does not automatically equate with "It is right".
The notion of corporate "personhood" rests on a similar fallacy: that recognition of a body as a an entity under the law is the same as granting that entity legal status as a person. It is furthermore based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision, either:
The notion of "corporate personhood" was adopted by the Supreme Court under very dubious circumstances, when a court reporter used the term in a head note he created for an 1886 Court decision that actually declined to address the issue. (The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394.)
In a later 1889 case, Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company (129 U.S. 26), Justice Field cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons, and that inaccurate notion of Santa Clara's holding remains today. Nonetheless, other Supreme Court decisions support the opposite view....
The problems with corporate "personhood" are many, and the benefits few if any (unless you've a direct vested interest in the corporation). However, this issue really has little if any bearing on the current discussion -- Hormel have been using the name since well before there was an Internet, and there is otherwise a sound basis in law for disallowing the use of the word "spam" by any other entity as a means of identifying its meat products. However, so long as makers of software used to combat the problem of junk electronic mail make it clear that their use of the word "Spam" applies only to that realm, and do not imply that they or their products have anything to do with Hormel or the meat-packing trade, I don't see where Hormel have any ground for complaint.
Off-topic: I like Spam(tm) fried to a fare-thee-well with egg, cheese, and mayo on toast.:)
> "Quitting" is barely a meaningful concept in a > situation like that.
I beg to differ. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to correspond at some length with MC Brown (I was interviewed by him for the April issue of the print magazine), and found him to be someone who's really passionate about Open Source. He was doing the LW gig because it mattered to him and he hoped to make a difference by encouraging others to make use of the software and to get involved in the movement. With the MOG debacle, the automation of the site, and the utter cluelessness of the publisher, he and the others saw that LW could no longer be a trusted vehicle for spreading the good word.
I guess that's easy enough to do when you're unaware of what work they've actually done, eh?
I don't know about the other two, but Dee-Ann LeBlanc is a recognised tech writer with several books to her credit, including Linux for Dummies and the Linux System Administration Black Book, both of which have been rated pretty highly.
> It is your choice of applications that is making > the windows install longer.
Heh. You really mean that it's the *lack* of choices that makes the Windows install longer, don't you?;)
Actually, I'm more inclined to think that it's the seemingly endless string of reboots required to patch/update the OS, to perform many system configuration tasks, and by numerous Windows applications (some Microsoft, some not). I've grown to loathe installing new apps on a Windows machine because of having to reboot. I have trouble believing now that I used to think of this requirement as "normal".
Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris all do just that, thanks.
> First you complain that Microsoft has an unfair > advantage with bundling their apps. You want them > to be forced to unbundle their apps. Then after > they unbundle their apps you complain that > Windows doesn't come bundled with any apps.
Who is "you" here? I didn't say that. But now that you bring it up... (see below)
> I think Microsoft did have an unfair advantage in > bundling their apps, but I'll be damned if my > government is going to force them to bundle > competitor's apps.
More stuff I didn't say. But now that you bring it up...
1. No government forces any of the the OSes I use (not even Windows) to bundle certain apps, so this is a straw man.
2. I never asked the government to do so, either. (See #1.)
3. The difference between what you get in a typical Free OS install and Windows is that the Free OS offers you *choices*. Would you prefer OpenOffice.org, KOffice? (AbiWord? Gnumeric?) Kopete or Gaim? Kchat, Konversation, KSirc, or XChat? KDE or Gnome? (or FWM, WindowMaker, CDE, Java Desktop, IceWM, etc.?) Mozilla, Konqueror, or Opera? Mozilla Mail, KMail, Pine, Thunderbird, or Evolution? And so on. Each of these will do the job, each has its own bells & whistles (or lack thereof).
> If you're talking about, say, a small business > that needs basic desktop machines, the overhead > in say, going with an OS OS will far exceed any > price savings.
And what sort of "overhead" might that be? A modern Linux distro practically installs and configures itself, comes with boatloads of software, and does not require an advanced degree to sit down and start using for everyday (non-development) purposes.
My last Linux installation took about 1/3 the time of my last Windows installation (on the exact same, very recent hardware) and the Linux installation included setting up hardware, networking, and installing many common personal/small biz apps such as office suite, browser, email, IM, etc. The Windows install did not include any of these "extras", all of which must be done *in addition to* the OS install for a Windows box.
The last time I installed Windows, it took me roughly a day and a half to have everything ready to roll so I could get some work done. The Linux installation took maybe a couple of hours to achieve the same goal. In spite of the fact that I have about 8-10 times more experience using Windows than I do using Linux.
Sure some of the apps are a little different, but most of them have a little "Help" clicky-widget in the program menu just like any Windows app does.
My experience is that the myth that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux is just that, a myth. *Particularly* in the SOHO space.
> Having a windows installation is actually not recommended on the winehq site.
Is that due to technical concerns, or Microsoft EULAs? I'm inclined that it's more a case of CYA than anything else.
Seriously, I've read man wine.conf(5), and I fail to see how you're going to obtain the necessary DLLs, the paths, Registry entries, etc. any other way.
Not that it really matters to me very much, as one of the reasons I switched to Linux was because I didn't want to run Micrososft software or anything that depended on it any more.
Who are you to say I'm not a contributor to Open Source? I'm a co-author of several books on various Open Source technologies (a couple of them have even got favourable reviews on/.), and I work full-time writing documentation for a major Open Source software firm. (I don't need to name-drop to prove myself, so feel free to read my profile and figure it out.) BTW, I don't work for SuSE or Novell.
Your posts basically boil down to, "Mandrake is the best and if you don't use it, you suck". You appear to say that Mandrake is the best because it passes some sort of ideological purity test, and you keep getting all defensive over the recent merger.
I on the other hand didn't say that Mandriva was any better or any worse than any other distro. I even said I've used it and have found some things to like about it. It's a decent fork of Red Hat, and seems to have a strong community. However, there are other distros with strong communities of users and developers -- look at Debian or Gentoo (obnoxious fanboys notwithstanding) or Ubuntu. When I tried Mandrake 10 on the new workstation I bought in December, I had numerous problems with it, and found that SuSE 9.2 supported all my hardware almost flawlessly. So I'm using SuSE, because it works for me. If I find something that works better for me, then I'll use that instead. You go right ahead and use what works best for you, but don't go round trolling that it's the best for everyone or that there's something the matter with people who don't use it or that it's "the only real distro... just because". That's just silly.
I support Open Source and it supports me. I make my living from it. I believe in the Open Source way of doing things for entirely pragmatic reasons, not because I have to prop my ego up by associating myself with any particular project, logo, company, Linux distro or even operating system -- right now I also have machines running Solaris, Windows 2000, and FreeBSD.
The real test is simply this: Are you doing something to help users or not? Telling people that they're wrong/stupid/incompetent/impure because they don't use Distro X doesn't help anyone, and the fact that you refuse to put your name behind what you say just confirms it.
Slashdot Mirror
No worries, mate... Microsoft's got me to upgrade 75% of the Win2K machines on my LAN already...one to SuSE, one to FreeBSD, one to Solaris...
So why not just run KDE in "Redmond" mode and be done with it?
If you want something similar to PHP's foreach, you can use for
As I've remarked in another post, implementing these methods in a cross-browser and forward-compatible fashion is not difficult if you know what you're doing:Test:You've now just implemented these methods for browsers that don't support them, and they won't break in a JS interpreter that *does* have native support for them. I've used a bunch of array methods that I stole from PHP and Python in this way for ages.
Works in any browser that supports JS 1.2 and up. Tested in Mozilla/Linux, FireFox/Windows, FireFox/FreeBSD, Konqueror/Linux, Konqueror/FreeBSD, Opera/Linux, Opera/Windows, and even MSIE.
That wasn't so hard, now, was it?
(I will leave passing in parameters to the called functions as an exercise for the interested reader.)
1. What Mosaic code might that be?
2. I'm not responsible for what other people say about Microsoft.
Many of the new Array methods are similar to methods I've written myself and used for years. Admittedly the methods themselves aren't part of the ECMA spec, but object extension via prototyping is a core feature of the language. It shouldn't be difficult to implement them on your own for other browsers.
They'll just run a bit faster in Mozilla/FireFox, is all, since they'll be run as part of the interpreter rather than as interpreted code.
Most of the other stuff is based on W3C standards.
Short version: I'll continue to do cool stuff quickly in Moz and spend time writing workarounds for MSIE, just like I've been doing for the last 4-5 years. Nothing particularly new about that.
Either you can't draw a good analogy to save your life, or this is a badly-disguised troll. Hint: Mozilla didn't steal code from anybody.
(The article was pretty lame, too.)
Well, know I know. Cheers.
> And this new image protection for posting sucks
> too.
Image protection? Haven't seen that. What gives?
Like I said, come back when you understand what the phrase actually means.
It's a copy-and-paste job. I called him on it. How is that "feeding the trolls"?
Please don't use a phrase unless you understand what it means.
This is nothing more than a copy and paste troll.
Please come up with something original.
Thanks.
That doesn't necessarily make it right, even if it's true. Which isn't necessarily the case: that's like saying that the customary treatment by many Americans of dark-skinned humans as chattel in the 18th and 19th Centuries was evidence that this practise was therefore "right" and that the 14th Amendment ought never to have been adopted.
In short, "It is" does not automatically equate with "It is right".
The notion of corporate "personhood" rests on a similar fallacy: that recognition of a body as a an entity under the law is the same as granting that entity legal status as a person. It is furthermore based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision, either:
The problems with corporate "personhood" are many, and the benefits few if any (unless you've a direct vested interest in the corporation). However, this issue really has little if any bearing on the current discussion -- Hormel have been using the name since well before there was an Internet, and there is otherwise a sound basis in law for disallowing the use of the word "spam" by any other entity as a means of identifying its meat products. However, so long as makers of software used to combat the problem of junk electronic mail make it clear that their use of the word "Spam" applies only to that realm, and do not imply that they or their products have anything to do with Hormel or the meat-packing trade, I don't see where Hormel have any ground for complaint.
Off-topic: I like Spam(tm) fried to a fare-thee-well with egg, cheese, and mayo on toast.
> Why did Mozilla release Netscape 8...?
Um, Mozilla didn't release it -- AOL did.
> "Quitting" is barely a meaningful concept in a
> situation like that.
I beg to differ. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to correspond at some length with MC Brown (I was interviewed by him for the April issue of the print magazine), and found him to be someone who's really passionate about Open Source. He was doing the LW gig because it mattered to him and he hoped to make a difference by encouraging others to make use of the software and to get involved in the movement. With the MOG debacle, the automation of the site, and the utter cluelessness of the publisher, he and the others saw that LW could no longer be a trusted vehicle for spreading the good word.
OP was definitely *not* a troll. I hope this will be redressed in metamod.
Meantime, welcome to my friends list.
> I hate to trivialize their work...
I guess that's easy enough to do when you're unaware of what work they've actually done, eh?
I don't know about the other two, but Dee-Ann LeBlanc is a recognised tech writer with several books to her credit, including Linux for Dummies and the Linux System Administration Black Book, both of which have been rated pretty highly.
> You obviously don't use OOo for real work.
I use it to write technical documentation for my employer's clients. Since they only see the PDF, they're perfectly okay with it.
I am also using it to write a book. My publisher is perfectly okay with that.
I think both of these activities count as "real work", thanks very much.
> It is your choice of applications that is making
;)
> the windows install longer.
Heh. You really mean that it's the *lack* of choices that makes the Windows install longer, don't you?
Actually, I'm more inclined to think that it's the seemingly endless string of reboots required to patch/update the OS, to perform many system configuration tasks, and by numerous Windows applications (some Microsoft, some not). I've grown to loathe installing new apps on a Windows machine because of having to reboot. I have trouble believing now that I used to think of this requirement as "normal".
> You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris all do just that, thanks.
> First you complain that Microsoft has an unfair
> advantage with bundling their apps. You want them
> to be forced to unbundle their apps. Then after
> they unbundle their apps you complain that
> Windows doesn't come bundled with any apps.
Who is "you" here? I didn't say that. But now that you bring it up... (see below)
> I think Microsoft did have an unfair advantage in
> bundling their apps, but I'll be damned if my
> government is going to force them to bundle
> competitor's apps.
More stuff I didn't say. But now that you bring it up...
1. No government forces any of the the OSes I use (not even Windows) to bundle certain apps, so this is a straw man.
2. I never asked the government to do so, either. (See #1.)
3. The difference between what you get in a typical Free OS install and Windows is that the Free OS offers you *choices*. Would you prefer OpenOffice.org, KOffice? (AbiWord? Gnumeric?) Kopete or Gaim? Kchat, Konversation, KSirc, or XChat? KDE or Gnome? (or FWM, WindowMaker, CDE, Java Desktop, IceWM, etc.?) Mozilla, Konqueror, or Opera? Mozilla Mail, KMail, Pine, Thunderbird, or Evolution? And so on. Each of these will do the job, each has its own bells & whistles (or lack thereof).
> ...we have to make software decisions based on *the
> bottom line*. Idealism doesn't pay the rent.
Which is *exactly* why I use Linux and Open Source applications.
I save tonnes of time and money - and my machines belong to *me*, stem to stern.
> If you're talking about, say, a small business
> that needs basic desktop machines, the overhead
> in say, going with an OS OS will far exceed any
> price savings.
And what sort of "overhead" might that be? A modern Linux distro practically installs and configures itself, comes with boatloads of software, and does not require an advanced degree to sit down and start using for everyday (non-development) purposes.
My last Linux installation took about 1/3 the time of my last Windows installation (on the exact same, very recent hardware) and the Linux installation included setting up hardware, networking, and installing many common personal/small biz apps such as office suite, browser, email, IM, etc. The Windows install did not include any of these "extras", all of which must be done *in addition to* the OS install for a Windows box.
The last time I installed Windows, it took me roughly a day and a half to have everything ready to roll so I could get some work done. The Linux installation took maybe a couple of hours to achieve the same goal. In spite of the fact that I have about 8-10 times more experience using Windows than I do using Linux.
Sure some of the apps are a little different, but most of them have a little "Help" clicky-widget in the program menu just like any Windows app does.
My experience is that the myth that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux is just that, a myth. *Particularly* in the SOHO space.
> Having a windows installation is actually not recommended on the winehq site.
Is that due to technical concerns, or Microsoft EULAs? I'm inclined that it's more a case of CYA than anything else.
Seriously, I've read man wine.conf(5), and I fail to see how you're going to obtain the necessary DLLs, the paths, Registry entries, etc. any other way.
Not that it really matters to me very much, as one of the reasons I switched to Linux was because I didn't want to run Micrososft software or anything that depended on it any more.
Which requires a Windows installation.
You were saying?
And it's a .msi file, hence Windows only.
How appropriate.
Who are you to say I'm not a contributor to Open Source? I'm a co-author of several books on various Open Source technologies (a couple of them have even got favourable reviews on /.), and I work full-time writing documentation for a major Open Source software firm. (I don't need to name-drop to prove myself, so feel free to read my profile and figure it out.) BTW, I don't work for SuSE or Novell.
Your posts basically boil down to, "Mandrake is the best and if you don't use it, you suck". You appear to say that Mandrake is the best because it passes some sort of ideological purity test, and you keep getting all defensive over the recent merger.
I on the other hand didn't say that Mandriva was any better or any worse than any other distro. I even said I've used it and have found some things to like about it. It's a decent fork of Red Hat, and seems to have a strong community. However, there are other distros with strong communities of users and developers -- look at Debian or Gentoo (obnoxious fanboys notwithstanding) or Ubuntu. When I tried Mandrake 10 on the new workstation I bought in December, I had numerous problems with it, and found that SuSE 9.2 supported all my hardware almost flawlessly. So I'm using SuSE, because it works for me. If I find something that works better for me, then I'll use that instead. You go right ahead and use what works best for you, but don't go round trolling that it's the best for everyone or that there's something the matter with people who don't use it or that it's "the only real distro... just because". That's just silly.
I support Open Source and it supports me. I make my living from it. I believe in the Open Source way of doing things for entirely pragmatic reasons, not because I have to prop my ego up by associating myself with any particular project, logo, company, Linux distro or even operating system -- right now I also have machines running Solaris, Windows 2000, and FreeBSD.
The real test is simply this: Are you doing something to help users or not? Telling people that they're wrong/stupid/incompetent/impure because they don't use Distro X doesn't help anyone, and the fact that you refuse to put your name behind what you say just confirms it.