QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: how to get url of script
Next: question of logic?
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 21 Mar 2010 10:54 On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > > Not all arguments that you are incapable to comprehend are not valid. > this is all about this group, people writing stuff convinced to be the only one with valid points. Again, I have simply improved for scalability and portability your silly suggestion, you could have said "sure, thanks", you ended up talking about my mental sanity, pills, and the fact my function is simply more robust than your one but you'll never admit it. I love developers, they are so funny! Regards
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 21 Mar 2010 11:05 > > An example of what? (You have only quoted a part of the statement.) > indeed, bla bla bla, and no concrete side effect/demonstration about my simple proof of concept with simply a logical name for what it is (it represents the intent of the argument). Again, read carefully, PROOF OF CONCEPT, I can explain what it means if you want, just let me know. > > Nobody sane uses `new Boolean', though. > mate, I write robust code, I don't make silly assumptions > > Memory. (Can't you read?) > please provide numbers and tests and stop this attempt to climb mirrors > > Can you reword this question so that it make sense? > as already said > > I have no list > oh, really? so what are you talking about? > > but I have read here from people I trust they know what > they are saying and doing > same is for me, I know what say and what I do, I am sorry you don't trust me > > that there are relevant mobile > devices that do not implement all features of ES 3 to save memory. > is instanceof or Object.prototype.isprototypeOf part of this? because you keep contradicting your self, changing topic, escaping from examples and concrete facts. Let's summarize here ... I have said, and other before me, instanceof is all you need, eventually isPrototypeOf, which makes even more sense since constructor does notmean *anything* for an instance, it's just a property able to tell you *nothing* about it indeed. Your nonsense isInstance function, could be eventually used as fallback for browser without isPorototypeOf support, using my version, since your one is less robust (I don't have to demonstrate it again I hope) Regards
From: David Mark on 21 Mar 2010 12:25 Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:21 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> You've got a long way to go. >> > > dude, I am sorry, but I have never learned anything new from your > posts here, Yes, the latter implies the former. You might start with rewriting PureDom as My Library beats it 4:1 in WebKit, 3:1 in Opera, etc. Not too pure is it? As for the rest, I really have a hard time understanding you. I take it your point is that I am bad and you are good. Well, we are all entitled to our opinions (even when they are plainly wrong). :)
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 21 Mar 2010 13:20 On Mar 20, 4:38 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > I have no list, but I have read here from people I trust they know what > they are saying and doing (so not you) that there are relevant mobile > devices that do not implement all features of ES 3 to save memory. Would this be WMLScript?
From: Stefan Weiss on 21 Mar 2010 20:03
On 20/03/10 22:21, David Mark wrote: > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> On Mar 20, 9:24 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> As I have said, all your base are belong to us. >> >> ... if you like to think it, please feel free to do it (btw, recycled >> typo not even fun anymore ... did you play only that game?) > > What game? Zero Wing. Your quote. >> However, most web servers are still configured to rely into userAgent >> strings to redirect pages, serve files, etc etc ... > > Like hell they are. Server side sniffing is not in widespread use, > except by the most incompetent of server administrators (who should > really be digging ditches instead). I'd like to believe that, but the default Apache config file for SSL vhosts in Debian contains this passage: # SSL Protocol Adjustments: [...] # Notice: Most problems of broken clients are also related to the HTTP # keep-alive facility, so you usually additionally want to disable # keep-alive for those clients, too. Use variable "nokeepalive" for # this. Similarly, one has to force some clients to use HTTP/1.0 to # workaround their broken HTTP/1.1 implementation. Use variables # "downgrade-1.0" and "force-response-1.0" for this. BrowserMatch ".*MSIE.*" \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 Looks rather heavy handed... "Back to the '90s, Opera! Here's some HTTP/1.0 for you." I'm not an expert on how well SSL is supported in legacy user agents, but feature testing a client isn't as easy on the server as it is in JavaScript - the request header's all you've got to work on. -- stefan |