Non-Browser javascript Implementations - Rhino
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) online without script, online pharmacy Sildenafil (Kamagra) no prescription, buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) in Salt Lake City, buy cheap Sildenafil (Kamagra) online now
Next: Cursor in a textarea
From: Garrett Smith on 12 Apr 2010 17:53 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation > > There are no "javascript implementations"; that is based on a fantasy > of yours. Take that to the dumpster, or Dumpster. I don't want to get my adrenalin flowing over that. Oops, I meant epinephrine. [...] > Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"? > > | [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting > | to end users. > That fact does not make Rhino a browser. Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser. Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad and what is a more appropriate alternative? >> Non-Browser javascript Implementations >> >> I think the link should be on the list: >> <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> > > Certainly yes, but under a different (more sensible) heading. > How about: Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> I don't see any problem with that. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 12 Apr 2010 18:48 Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation >> >> There are no "javascript implementations"; that is based on a fantasy >> of yours. > > Take that to the dumpster, or Dumpster. I don't want to get my adrenalin > flowing over that. Oops, I meant epinephrine. Rhino is _not_ a "non-browser javascript implementation". > [...] > >> Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"? >> >> | [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide >> | [scripting | to end users. > > That fact does not make Rhino a browser. And I did not say so. You want to learn to read. > Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and > ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser. I did not say so. Learn to read. > Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? > If so, why is it bad Because it's wrong. Learn to read. > and what is a more appropriate alternative? ECMAScript implementation. Learn to read. >>> Non-Browser javascript Implementations >>> >>> I think the link should be on the list: >>> <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> >> >> Certainly yes, but under a different (more sensible) heading. > > How about: > > Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations > <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> So close ... yet so far. It is _not_ "non-browser". Learn to read. > I don't see any problem with that. I do, and had you read my posting, you would have, too. PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: RobG on 12 Apr 2010 19:49 On Apr 13, 7:53 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Garrett Smith wrote: [...] > > Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"? > > > | [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting > > | to end users. > > That fact does not make Rhino a browser. > > Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and > ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser. Thomas would rather nit-pick at the detail and be obnoxious than solve the issue efficiently. If you don't get what he thinks he meant the first time you read what he writes, he thinks you are a complete idiot. However, if he misunderstands what you write, it's because you are wrong, didn't explain correctly, or fully, or whatever. He is intolerant, expect to be chided. > Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad > and what is a more appropriate alternative? It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser (at all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't, strictly, be called "non-browser". I guess you could call it a stand- alone or modularised implementation that can be included in any Java application, including a browser (which is more or less what you've already written, I think most will get the idea). Or you could define "non-browser" as available as a stand-alone module that is not dependent on a browser. In that case, some "browser" implementations might need to be re-classified as "non-browser". Do you want to make this a definitional debate? :) [...]> How about: > > Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations > <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> > > I don't see any problem with that. Perhaps the issue can be resolved by explaining what is meant by "non- browser", e.g. | Non-browser javascript Implementations The following implementations are not dependent upon a browser. | Developing Dashboard Widgets | http://developer.apple.com/macosx/dashboard.html | ... | Java applications (including browsers) http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ -- Rob
From: nick on 12 Apr 2010 20:14 On Apr 12, 7:49 pm, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: <snip> > It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser (at > all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't, > strictly, be called "non-browser". I guess you could call it a stand- > alone or modularised implementation that can be included in any Java > application, including a browser (which is more or less what you've > already written, I think most will get the idea). <snip> Stand-alone was the first thing that came to my mind on hearing this debate. Of course since some people here seem to have a bit of trouble with making sensible inferences from things they read, you'd have to qualify any terms you come up with to avoid the incessant nitpicking... "Browser-based" could be used to mean it was originally developed (AKA 'based') in the context of a browser, whether or not it is separable from the browser or useful for other things, while non-browser-based (or stand-alone IYP) can mean not originally developed in the context of a web browser. As long as the terms are descriptive of what they represent and are clearly defined, I see no reason no to use them (or similar). I'll cast my vote for: "Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines" /2¢
From: Garrett Smith on 12 Apr 2010 20:38
nick wrote: > On Apr 12, 7:49 pm, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > <snip> [...] > I'll cast my vote for: > "Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines" > Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go? -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |