FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 26 Jul 2010 19:52 On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > Bullshit. The only botched GC is the one in Microsoft's Internet > Explorer(s). Which one? You do realize that the problem is partially related to the fact that there is more than one right?
From: Ry Nohryb on 26 Jul 2010 20:09 On Jul 27, 1:52 am, "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")" <t...(a)thenewobjective.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 6:32 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > Bullshit. The only botched GC is the one in Microsoft's Internet > > Explorer(s). > > Which one? You do realize that the problem is partially related to the > fact that there is more than one right? No. More than one what ? more than one GC ? more than one IE ? more than one JScript ? or more than one bug :-) ? Please elaborate. -- Jorge.
From: Ry Nohryb on 26 Jul 2010 20:16 On Jul 27, 12:49 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > IE9 looks very good To whom ? Does it -finally- come with the <canvas> ? > but you'll still have to write competent scripts > that work in IE < 9 for years to come. Ah, No no no. Not me. I won't. Thanks but no, thanks. -- Jorge.
From: JR on 26 Jul 2010 20:38 On Jul 26, 9:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 8:16 am, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > -People will switch to another browser, one that works, of which there > > are at least four very nice ones: FireFox, Opera, Safari and Chrome. > > The flaw in your little scheme is that many people (e.g. corporate > users) cannot switch browsers. And, of course, many users don't know > what a browser is (they just click the "Internet" icon and a magic Web > window appears). Unfortunately, it is the purest truth! -- JR
From: David Mark on 26 Jul 2010 20:50
On Jul 26, 7:32 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 11:18 pm, Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (...) if you write for any > > environment with reference counting GC you will have the big issue. > > The good habits are the best solution in this case. I really don't > > care about circular reference pattern, just because I don't use it. > > The circular reference pattern must be fixed during design stage of an > > application. > > (...) > > Bullshit. The only botched GC is the one in Microsoft's Internet > Explorer(s). Even if you could prove such a generalization, what difference would it make? IE is the most-used browser. ;) > > Except when coding -defensively- against Microsoft's IE's bugs, > there's nothing to "fix during design stage of an application" wrt > circular references. You still don't get it, Jorge. You never need to create circular references that involve host objects. I'll go way out on a limb and assume that you have created lots of them over the years and rather than go back and clean up your messes, you want to wish IE away. Good luck with that. > > And, many JavaScript/Web programmers -like you- ought to quit this > awful habit of styling and circumscribing the code to the -pitiful- > subset of JavaScript/DOM that remains after cutting out and removing > the -many- broken pieces in Microsoft's JScript+ the IE DOM. Again with the reality issues. > Or more > or less convoluted workarounds. Like what? Not creating circular references in an "addEvent" wrapper? Granted, there was a time when it was widely considered impossible, but it should be clear at this point that it is trivial to implement such things. > How many millions of man hours have > been/are still being wasted due to the habit of coding workarounds for > IE's bugs ? How many millions of man hours have been/are wasted writing bad scripts that leak memory in IE (the most-used browser on the planet)? > > You should instead try to make it as evident as possible to the site > visitors: inform them that their browser is broken, and that that's > NOT your fault/the site's fault. *Again* with the reality issues. Some users have no idea what a browser *is*. Get it? Your ridiculous attempts to shift blame away from your scripts will not cut any weight with such users (assuming they read your note at all). And then there are corporate users, who have been known to browse the Web from their cubicles. There's a group with disposal income and often the inability to install alternate browsers. See the problem? > > And please don't pretend that the users of your site(s) are all > stupid. It's not a matter of stupidity and it doesn't need to be all of them either. The Little Old Lady from Pasadena and Joe from Accounting have different reasons for ignoring (or laughing at) your rationalizations. For one it is ignorance and the others are simply forbidden from installing new browsers by network admins. What can they do? > Most of them are perfectly able to switch IE for another - > good- browser that works, *as*soon*as*/if the need arises > (corporations included). As Richard pointed out, you are not going to initiate some worldwide change in corporate policy with your anti-IE ranting. Corporations are in the business of making money, not making it easy for their employees to browse the Web (and activity that often costs money in terms of wasted time and which can introduce security problems). Clear? |