FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing todo.
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Javascript exception control
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I format a Number as a String with exactly 2 decimal places? (2010-07-28)
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 17:39 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate intranet >>>>>>>>> environment, where webapps can create and manipulate MSOffice objects >>>>>>>>> to integrate existing business documents with database-driven webapps. >>>>>>>>> Your other "Big 4" browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. >>>>>>>> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with >>>>>>>> the web. >>>>>>> Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. >>>>>> You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a decision >>>>>> not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count on correct garbage >>>>>> collection. If there is a problem, he can dictate the browser. >>>>> And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge is >>>>> the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his head. "El >>>>> Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. >>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers do not >>>> support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is relevant to Matt. I >>>> assume he is saying that is an argument in favor of IE. >>>>>> If you >>>>>> can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then >>>>>> you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper >>>>>> garbage collection). >>>>> You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's >>>>> choice of browser. >> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like >> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the >> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the >> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. >> >>>> If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE. >>> That's not true. Many projects of mine (including My Library) use >>> ActiveX (e.g. XHR, DirectX, etc.), and yet they work just fine in >>> other browsers. >> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like >> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the >> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the >> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. >> > > Thank you for that, Alan. The point so nice you made it twice? > > Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still irrelevant to > the discussion. Irrelevant to the discussion perhaps, but rock solid reasoning that is undeniably true, as evidenced by your inability to refute it. Once again, you are not arguing the point. You are arguing semantics. You find a word you don't like and that gives you the opportunity to dodge the fact that you can't maintain your argument. The statement was made twice, because you continue to refuse to accept that I am saying. If it is possible to choose to develop browser based applications that integrate with desktop applications, then it is possible to choose to develop browser applications that require a functioning garbage collector. It can be the case that application requirements dictate browser requirements, not the other way around. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 17:47 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 28, 5:39 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate intranet >>>>>>>>>>> environment, where webapps can create and manipulate MSOffice objects >>>>>>>>>>> to integrate existing business documents with database-driven webapps. >>>>>>>>>>> Your other "Big 4" browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. >>>>>>>>>> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>> the web. >>>>>>>>> Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. >>>>>>>> You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a decision >>>>>>>> not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count on correct garbage >>>>>>>> collection. If there is a problem, he can dictate the browser. >>>>>>> And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge is >>>>>>> the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his head. "El >>>>>>> Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. >>>>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers do not >>>>>> support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is relevant to Matt. I >>>>>> assume he is saying that is an argument in favor of IE. >>>>>>>> If you >>>>>>>> can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then >>>>>>>> you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper >>>>>>>> garbage collection). >>>>>>> You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's >>>>>>> choice of browser. >>>> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like >>>> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the >>>> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the >>>> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. >>>>>> If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE. >>>>> That's not true. Many projects of mine (including My Library) use >>>>> ActiveX (e.g. XHR, DirectX, etc.), and yet they work just fine in >>>>> other browsers. >>>> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like >>>> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the >>>> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the >>>> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. >>> Thank you for that, Alan. The point so nice you made it twice? >>> Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still irrelevant to >>> the discussion. >> Irrelevant to the discussion perhaps, but rock solid reasoning that is >> undeniably true, as evidenced by your inability to refute it. >> > > More like my unwillingness to consider irrelevancies. Haven't you > learned that yet? Unwillingness to accept challenges to your self-appointed role as pedagouge? Yes. I'm all over it. Remains that Joerge has a valid point. Circular references don't matter if you have a properly garbage collected JavaScript, so if you don't have to support Internet Explorer, then don't worry about it. It's folly to do so. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 19:33 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 28, 5:35 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> Richard Cornford wrote: >>> Alan Gutierrez wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez wrote: >>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>>>>>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate >>>>>>>>> intranet environment, where webapps can create and >>>>>>>>> manipulate MSOffice objects to integrate existing business >>>>>>>>> documents with database-driven webapps. Your other "Big 4" >>>>>>>>> browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. >>>>>>>> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing >>>>>>>> to do with the web. >>>>>>> Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. >>>>>> You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a >>>>>> decision not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count >>>>>> on correct garbage collection. If there is a problem, he can >>>>>> dictate the browser. >>>>> And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge >>>>> is the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his >>>>> head. "El Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. >>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers >>>> do not support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is >>>> relevant to Matt. I assume he is saying that is an argument >>>> in favor of IE. >>> It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about IE. There >>> are business in the world that have intranets on which they have >>> browser-based applications that they use in order to conduct their >>> business. Some of these applications use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do >>> things that ordinary web browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these >>> businesses will not be giving these applications up because they >>> need/want them. So in these environments the browser installed on the >>> business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE. >>> If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you have to cope >>> with IE, because if you don't the sales will go to your competition, >>> because the client dictates the environment. >>> That is the reality in web application development, but it has obvious >>> implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. If someone >>> working for such a business is going to do a bit of online shopping >>> during their breaks (and there is no point in pretending that they >>> don't) then they will be using IE to do it. Now the online shop that >>> doesn't support IE is losing the business to its competitors that do. >>> And remember that these potential customers are, by definition, in >>> employment, and very often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of >>> customers most business want). >> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like >> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the >> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the >> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. >> >> Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want to target the >> iPad, people obviously have disposable income, I can use HTML 5 and >> JavaScript and have enough return on investment to not worry about >> people taking call center breaks. > > Targeting the iPad would be a silly thing to do on the Web. Very > silly. > > As you seem to favor long-winded posts, get a load of one of mine:- > > http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/msg/81bcd7477e79c842 I am not interested. I am only interested in driving home the point that you have yet to refute. That Joerge has a valid point. Circular references don't matter if you have a properly garbage collected JavaScript, so if you don't have to support Internet Explorer, then don't worry about it. You have not been able to refute my point. You can pile on a judgments about the examples used to illustrate my point, but you cannot refute the point. It only serves my point, which is that the choice to support a particular platform is a *choice*. You can think that it is a bad choice, but it means that it is true that, it can be the case that the application dictates the browser requirements, rather than the browser dictating the application requirements. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 19:41 Richard Cornford wrote: > Alan Gutierrez wrote: >> Richard Cornford wrote: >>> Alan Gutierrez wrote: > <snip> >>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers >>>> do not support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is >>>> relevant to Matt. I assume he is saying that is an argument >>>> in favor of IE. >>> >>> It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about >>> IE. There are business in the world that have intranets on >>> which they have browser-based applications that they use in >>> order to conduct their business. Some of these applications >>> use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do things that ordinary web >>> browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these businesses will >>> not be giving these applications up because they need/want >>> them. So in these environments the browser installed on the >>> business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE. >>> >>> If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you >>> have to cope with IE, because if you don't the sales will go >>> to your competition, because the client dictates the environment. >>> >>> That is the reality in web application development, but it has >>> obvious implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. >>> If someone working for such a business is going to do a bit of >>> online shopping during their breaks (and there is no point in >>> pretending that they don't) then they will be using IE to do >>> it. Now the online shop that doesn't support IE is losing the >>> business to its competitors that do. And remember that these >>> potential customers are, by definition, in employment, and very >>> often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of customers most >>> business want). >> >> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology >> like ActiveX, > > I am not. What I am doing is designing/building web applications for > business use. > >> then it is the case that there are situations where the application >> matters more than the browser, > > Possibly, but those decisions are made by the client's IT department, > and are not open for negotiation. > >> so requirements dictate the browser instead of the browser >> dictating the requirements. > > For me a requirement is that the browser is not dictated, but rather > accommodated. > >> Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want >> to target the iPad, > > You want to target? So this is purely personal project where you make > the business decisions? On every project I make the business decisions. I make the business decision to take on a project. If the project is burdened by arbitrary requirements, I'll pass on the project. You seem to bring it back to your choice of platform and your business and your personal preferences. The fact remains that Jeorge is correct in his argument that, if you choose not to support browsers that do not provide a proper garbage collector, then these issues of circular references do not matter. >> people obviously have disposable income, > > Logically that is only 'had' disposable income, as they may have > disposed of it on the iPad ;-) > >> I can use HTML 5 and JavaScript and have enough return on >> investment to not worry about people taking call center >> breaks. > > "Call centre breaks"? The business I was thinking of were the ones that > use the software I write, including a dozen or so of the world's largest > financial institutions (who cannot be named due to confidentiality > clauses in contracts, but hence my allusion to "well paid") and all of > whom have IE (and often IE 6) only desktops business wide. > >> Online shopping is one application of the web, but there are others. > > Yes, though it is the application of the web where it is most obvious > where the money is coming from. Then there is advertising/promotion; > widespread and again often interested in attracting the attention of the > well paid. > >> Let's say I want a single purpose front end and the entire >> organization is committed to running one application and >> wants the shortest path to a working application. So, I >> choose Chrome and HTML 5 and a JavaScript implementation >> that has property garbage collection. > > Fine, you can say whatever you like, but if your customers will not play > ball then they won't be your customers. That may not always matter but > sometimes (indeed often) it will. Obviously. This also makes my point. If they are supporting a platform that I do not support, then we both go back into the market to find a better pairing. You conceede the point here. You admit that I am right, that Jeorge is right. So the discussion can end here. You can specialize in maintaining the environments of the past, I can specialize in the creating the environments of the future. >>> And if you were never in a position to say either? >> >> And if you were always in a position to say both? > <snip> > > "Always"? That sounds like a very specialised context that most people > are unlikely to find themselves in (often, if ever). > > Matt's point in response to Jorge's suggestion is an observation of the > market as it is today (and some explanation of why the market is the way > it is). People will act to service that market, that will undermine > Jorge's grand scheme for dictating browsers, and since the scheme relies > on everyone going along with it, it must then fail. Jeorge's grand scheme is to build applications that are not burdened by the weight of a 10 year legacy. It rules out a lot of shops, but not all of them, and if there is a market large enough to pay his bills now, it will only get larger as time goes on. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 22:46
Scott Sauyet wrote: > Alan Gutierrez wrote: >> You seem to bring it back to your choice of platform and your business >> and your personal preferences. The fact remains that Jeorge is correct >> in his argument that, if you choose not to support browsers that do not >> provide a proper garbage collector, then these issues of circular >> references do not matter. > > That point is obvious enough to those paying attention to be almost > tautological. But Jorge was arguing much further that taking > advantage of this and writing scripts that would obviously fail in IE > would be an effective technique to either move people away from IE or > convince MS to fix its browser. That argument is much less clear. > Most of the people who've tried that, I imagine, have found themselves > fairly disappointed in the results; unemployment is rarely pleasant. Moving away from an end of life platform and toward contemporary platforms is a valid strategy. Moving off of vulnerable and unsupported platforms toward contemporary platforms is a valid strategy. Dwindling support for a platform expedites the drain. Certainly, Microsoft must be feeling pressure to catch up to Safari and Chrome, which are backed by serious competitors. If a developer wants to treat an improper garbage collector as an issue they do not want accommodate, I can see how it will reduce the cost and complexity of their offering, and their platform will only grow as time goes on. Otherwise, they are going to have a legacy user base, and it is hard to lose customers that you've begun to support. There will be plenty of employment for people who skate to where the puck will be. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy |