Prev: validating a form, one required field 2
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I POST a form to a new window? (2010-06-29)
From: Garrett Smith on 30 Jun 2010 03:30
On 2010-06-29 02:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-28 05:07 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> RobG wrote:
>>>>>> The code in the article has a $() function that simply calls
>>>>>> document.getElementById() and is used precisely once. So to save
>>>>>> typing 22 characters, the author wrote a function of 53 characters
>>>>>> and spaces (plus a bunch more for the comment). Consider using
>>>>>> instead:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> var $ = document.getElementById;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> within the scope it is required. No global "$", no extra function
>>>>>> call, far fewer characters to transmit and exactly (more or less) the
>>>>>> same functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not work as you suggest because the calling object would not be
>>>>> that referred to by `document' anymore, but the Global Object. As a
>>>>> result, at least MSHTML would throw an exception. I had to observe
>>>>> that when writing JSX:dhtml.js years ago and I presume it still holds
>>>>> true. So a wrapper is required if you want an alias for this, but it
>>>>> should have a better, self-descriptive identifier (like `dom.getEBI'
>>>>> etc. in
>>>>> JSX:dhtml.js). Since then this method included also feature testing
>>>>> for the MSHTML 4 and NS 4 DOMs, but it would appear that these can
>>>>> either be safely discarded in the near future or moved to compatibility
>>>>> libraries.
>>>> I see your case, but I have a few disagreements.
>>>
>>> Well, you are rather prone to misconceptions.
>>
>> Aside from the typo that Stephen Weiss caught (thanks), did I post
>> something wrong? Seems not.
>>

Stands.

And after all that noise of yours, nothing's changed. The
"misconceptions" you called foul on? Nope, only misconcpetions were
yours with attributing the idea to the wrong person, posting wrong
information on browsers where it works and doesn't, mentioning browsers
rather than applying the concept of prototype-based functions, and
giving a correctable, but understandable (though still imprecise)
explanation of context/thisArg.

All that wasted time for you.

>>>> Calling a host method with a different base object won't work in most
>>>> browsers.
>>>
>>> I believe I have said that.
>>>
>>>> [preaching to the choir]
>>
>> I did not write that.
>
> That's called a summary, stupid.
>


>>>> This is old news, appearing in an old post of erik's weblog:
>>>> "appendChild is not a function" and
>>
>> http://erik.eae.net/archives/2006/04/27/17.50.15/
>>
>> Whether or not Erik was wrong about other points doesn't really matter.
>> That entry is the one that counts here.
>>
>>> You don't mean the guy that completely botched JScript/MSHTML, do you?
>>
>> Dunno about that,
>
> Apparently you didn't mean him. Which keeps your argument fallacious,
> though.
>

Nothing fallacious at all; just more bs from thomas.

>> but the entry itself points out the fact I stated.
>> it's quoted so search google for that string and you'll see.
>>
>> Here...
>
> Let's eat sh*t -- a million flies can't be wrong.

Crying foul again?

Was the article incorrect?

You offered no valid, rational criticism in your response. About the
best we can do is come to the realization that you are irrational and no
such conclusions about the article's correctness can be made from your
comments.

Garrett
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 Jun 2010 19:03
Garrett Smith wrote:

> On 2010-06-29 02:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> Aside from the typo that Stephen Weiss caught (thanks), did I post
>>> something wrong? Seems not.
>
> Stands. [snip whining]

There have been other followups from me in this thread. Go read them.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: Garrett Smith on 30 Jun 2010 21:46
On 2010-06-30 04:03 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-29 02:13 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>>> Aside from the typo that Stephen Weiss caught (thanks), did I post
>>>> something wrong? Seems not.
>>
>> Stands. [snip whining]
>

That is not what I wrote, though it appears in a quote by me.

> There have been other followups from me in this thread. Go read them.
>

I read your posts, I'll get to correcting those as I see fit. Perhaps
there are others who are more worth it.

I see you snipped your reply about the comment for appendChild (along
with your other bs).

By the way, you may have noticed proposals (yep, more than one) to add
an entry to the FAQ regarding your behavior. you might or might not see
a relationship between that and you posting irrational and wrong
information and calling names.

I'm not the only one who is annoyed by such postings of yours. They
detract from the NG. Frankly I find it would be a stain to the FAQ.
however, I can see the motivation for such things.

Garrett
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: validating a form, one required field 2
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I POST a form to a new window? (2010-06-29)