Sencha Touch--Support 2 browsers in just 228K!
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - What is JScript? (2010-07-16)
Next: How to find if statusbar is hidden or visible in firefox?
From: RobG on 16 Jul 2010 08:34 On Jul 16, 4:50 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 2:16 am, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 1:38 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Sencha Touch is a bizarre mish-mash of ExtJS and a jQuery plug-in > > > called JQTouch. It is advertised as the first "HTML5 framework" based > > > on "standards" like HTML5 and CSS3. Of course, HTML5 is neither a > > > standard nor widely implemented > > > Ah, but it's the next best buzz-word after "Web 2-point-oh" and > > "AJAX". > > When did investment bankers turn into easily misdirected morons? > That's what I want to know. I'll accept that as sarcasm, it's not *their* money that they are risking. They tend to be good survivors, as Thucydides said: "... most people are more prepared to call villainy cleverness than simple mindedness honesty." Try this article from InfoWorld about Sencha and jQTouch: "Possible escapes from the mobile SDKs' clutches" "Writing a new mobile application from scratch for each customer on each platform? There are alternatives that don't engender huge costs" <URL: http://www.infoworld.com/t/development-frameworks/possible-escapes-the-mobile-sdks-clutches-763?page=0,1 > Yeah, right. Provided all mobile devices start running browsers based on the latest WebKit nightly. It wasn't that long ago some were saying the browser war is over, why doesn't everyone just use IE? Apparently all mobile devices should just adopt WebKit and mimic iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch. [...] > At this point, they've tried to support two (nearly identical) > browsers and failed miserably, even with the crutch of browser > sniffing. Not really surprising though is it. -- Rob
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Jul 2010 14:28 On 2010-07-15 11:31 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jul 16, 1:28 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-15 08:38 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >>> Sencha Touch is a bizarre mish-mash of ExtJS and a jQuery plug-in >> [...] >>> This is not a minor quibble. IE can be configured to disallow host >>> object expandos >> >> Can it? How so? > > I think you know full well how so. > > document.expando = false; > That is a document setting. There's no good reason for doing that. > Perhaps you are quibbling with the use of the term "configure"? > I suspected you didn't actually mean what you wrote. A setting that is performed by the user is not controllable by the page author. Contrast to that, document.expando, a document setting is set exclusively by the page is not entirely out of the authors' hands. There may be cases such as an advert which affects the document, but those can often be mitigated. In the case of the advert, keeping the advert in an iframe would avoid that. Any third party library that sets document.expando = false is probably going to cause a lot of problems. Among reasons for not using expandos, the fact that document.expando may be set to false seems not a good one. When it is known that IE will throw errors on simple things like: alert.a = 12; and that alert is a host method, or that adding document.rootElement might result in an error where the implementation comes along and defines that. Those possibilities can easily be factored out by not adding expandos. [...] > >> Other parts of Sencha have >> code for Internet Explorer, so why did they design it to fail in IE on >> this line? It would be trivial to provide a fallback for IE on that. > > Because it is a hastily thrown together mish-mash dressed up as a > breakthrough. > IT is because they've copy'n'pasted from the existing Ext-js code and that code, despite all the OO plumbing, has interdependencies and code duplication. Many things from Ext.util.Element >> >> [...] >> >> You're pulling weeds out of a patch of poison ivy. The design is the >> problem and fixing those issues isn't gonna make much difference. > > I agree that the entire thing should be scrapped and the authors are > clearly nowhere near proficient enough to write cross-browser > scripts. They've got little more than some pretty graphics and > bluster. But that never stopped jQuery (and many similar efforts) and > it didn't seem to register on the Ajaxian editors (of course, nothing > ever does). > >> >>> Pretty lousy name too. Sencha doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, >>> does it? :) >> >> No, if they want to sell, then they got the name right, > > How do you consider Sencha to be "right"? > Because it works for them. >> and they sure >> did get investment money from it, so it is working. > > I know all about the millions they got recently, but that's not > exclusively because of this product. They have a whole host of bad > scripts and a history of selling them. It will be interesting to see > if they use any of that money to hire competent programmers. > >> >> Trends say that a name should be Japanese or have an "x" or an "i" in >> it. > > Who conducted that study? And I don't see an "x" or an "i" in Sencha. > Sencha is Japamese. -- Garrett
From: David Mark on 16 Jul 2010 14:40 On Jul 16, 2:28 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-15 11:31 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 1:28 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-15 08:38 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>> Sencha Touch is a bizarre mish-mash of ExtJS and a jQuery plug-in > > [...] > > >>> This is not a minor quibble. IE can be configured to disallow host > >>> object expandos > > >> Can it? How so? > > > I think you know full well how so. > > > document.expando = false; > > That is a document setting. There's no good reason for doing that. > > > Perhaps you are quibbling with the use of the term "configure"? > > I suspected you didn't actually mean what you wrote. A setting that is > performed by the user is not controllable by the page author. > > Contrast to that, document.expando, a document setting is set > exclusively by the page is not entirely out of the authors' hands. There > may be cases such as an advert which affects the document, but those can > often be mitigated. In the case of the advert, keeping the advert in an > iframe would avoid that. > > Any third party library that sets document.expando = false is probably > going to cause a lot of problems. > > Among reasons for not using expandos, the fact that document.expando may > be set to false seems not a good one. It's just one. Certainly not the most important. > > When it is known that IE will throw errors on simple things like: > alert.a = 12; and that alert is a host method, or that adding > document.rootElement might result in an error where the implementation > comes along and defines that. Those possibilities can easily be factored > out by not adding expandos. Yes, that's my point; particularly when they are completely unneeded (as with that window.undefined nonsense). > > [...] > > > > >> Other parts of Sencha have > >> code for Internet Explorer, so why did they design it to fail in IE on > >> this line? It would be trivial to provide a fallback for IE on that. > > > Because it is a hastily thrown together mish-mash dressed up as a > > breakthrough. > > IT is because they've copy'n'pasted from the existing Ext-js code and > that code, despite all the OO plumbing, has interdependencies and code > duplication. Many things from Ext.util.Element > You seem to have trailed off. > > > > > > > >> [...] > > >> You're pulling weeds out of a patch of poison ivy. The design is the > >> problem and fixing those issues isn't gonna make much difference. > > > I agree that the entire thing should be scrapped and the authors are > > clearly nowhere near proficient enough to write cross-browser > > scripts. They've got little more than some pretty graphics and > > bluster. But that never stopped jQuery (and many similar efforts) and > > it didn't seem to register on the Ajaxian editors (of course, nothing > > ever does). > > >>> Pretty lousy name too. Sencha doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, > >>> does it? :) > > >> No, if they want to sell, then they got the name right, > > > How do you consider Sencha to be "right"? > > Because it works for them. Works in what way? And who is to say that another name would have worked better or worse? > > >> and they sure > >> did get investment money from it, so it is working. > > > I know all about the millions they got recently, but that's not > > exclusively because of this product. They have a whole host of bad > > scripts and a history of selling them. It will be interesting to see > > if they use any of that money to hire competent programmers. > > >> Trends say that a name should be Japanese or have an "x" or an "i" in > >> it. > > > Who conducted that study? And I don't see an "x" or an "i" in Sencha.. > > Sencha is Japamese. One out of three ain't bad?
From: Andrew Poulos on 17 Jul 2010 06:28 On 17/07/2010 12:01 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jul 15, 11:38 pm, David Mark<dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Sencha Touch is a bizarre mish-mash of ExtJS and a jQuery plug-in >> called JQTouch. > > Now where was I? Ah yes, the conditional augmentation of native > prototypes. What gets me is that even though it must be quite emotionally hurtful to have something (that they are probably quite proud of) criticised in such a strident manner they never appear to even acknowledge the validity or otherwise of the comments nor to take any steps towards addressing them. It would be heartening to read something like "yes, you're right but we're working to improve". Andrew Poulos
From: RobG on 17 Jul 2010 09:55
On Jul 17, 12:01 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Now where was I? Ah yes, the conditional augmentation of native > prototypes. I think you meant built-in prototypes (those of Object, String, etc.). Native prototypes (i.e. those of constructors created using javascript) are the only ones that should be augmented. -- Rob |