Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 13:03
I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
questions that pertain to libraries. It is true that, in a C++
newsgroup, you will have to redirect an occasional question that is
strictly and MFC question, but in general, comparing libraries is
educational and gives people library code they can reference.

comp.lang.shell discussions quickly evolve into comparisons of different
solutions for different tools. That was a way to expand knowledge.

If this is a way to deal with needy newbies, there are better ways to do
that.

--
Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 13:44
On Jul 23, 1:03 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
>   I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
> questions that pertain to libraries.

You are a bit confused. I suggest you review this recent thread in
which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/deb21d176dab3f52#

Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
the examples were all tangled up in jQuery. It's a rare case where
participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
assumes it does.

> It is true that, in a C++
> newsgroup, you will have to redirect an occasional question that is
> strictly and MFC question, but in general, comparing libraries is
> educational and gives people library code they can reference.

Do you realize how much comparison of libraries goes on here? This
group is the largest clearinghouse of (real) information about JS
libraries on the Web.

And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
Kenny who fits all three).
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 16:09
David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:03 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
>> I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
>> questions that pertain to libraries.
>
> You are a bit confused. I suggest you review this recent thread in
> which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/deb21d176dab3f52#
>
> Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
> the examples were all tangled up in jQuery. It's a rare case where
> participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
> library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
> assumes it does.

Interesting observations on jQuery 1.4.2 and leaks. Did anyone post a
bug report to jQuery? It seems like it would be valuable to the wider
JavaScript community.

> And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
> major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
> library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
> Kenny who fits all three).

Ad hominem much?

--
Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 16:28
On Jul 23, 4:09 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:03 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
> >>   I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
> >> questions that pertain to libraries.
>
> > You are a bit confused.  I suggest you review this recent thread in
> > which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thr...
>
> > Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
> > the examples were all tangled up in jQuery.  It's a rare case where
> > participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
> > library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
> > assumes it does.
>
> Interesting observations on jQuery 1.4.2 and leaks. Did anyone post a
> bug report to jQuery?

Don't bother. They can't/won't fix simple problems. Trying to get
them to rewrite their event handling will be pointless. It's all
tangled up in some nonsense called "Live" at this point.

Also, it is unlikely that this problem is specific to 1.4.2. It
almost certainly affects some or all of their previous do-overs.

> It seems like it would be valuable to the wider
> JavaScript community.

You are welcome to try, but you should take heed of advice from those
who have already gone down that road (many times with respect to this
particular library).

>
> > And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
> > major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
> > library.  That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
> > put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
> > Kenny who fits all three).
>
> Ad hominem much?
>

Repeat yourself much? At least you are accurate this time. Of
course, as a newcomer you are unaware of Kenny's history. Again, take
heed and be careful who you attempt to defend (at least until you get
your bearings straight).
From: Alan Gutierrez on 23 Jul 2010 16:49
David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:09 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 1:03 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
>>>> I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
>>>> questions that pertain to libraries.
>>> You are a bit confused. I suggest you review this recent thread in
>>> which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thr...
>>> Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
>>> the examples were all tangled up in jQuery. It's a rare case where
>>> participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
>>> library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
>>> assumes it does.
>> Interesting observations on jQuery 1.4.2 and leaks. Did anyone post a
>> bug report to jQuery?
>
> Don't bother. They can't/won't fix simple problems. Trying to get
> them to rewrite their event handling will be pointless. It's all
> tangled up in some nonsense called "Live" at this point.
>
> Also, it is unlikely that this problem is specific to 1.4.2. It
> almost certainly affects some or all of their previous do-overs.
>
>> It seems like it would be valuable to the wider
>> JavaScript community.
>
> You are welcome to try, but you should take heed of advice from those
> who have already gone down that road (many times with respect to this
> particular library).

Seems like it is worth a shot. If it is that bad, maybe it is worth a
fork. The jQuery library makes such pretty, pretty things. If it leaks
on IE6, that probably doesn't matter to my projects. I don't develop for
IE6. If that is their attitude, then it is shared.

Sadly, jQuery has gone to a web based forum, and I am not setup to
consume those.

>>> And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
>>> major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
>>> library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
>>> put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
>>> Kenny who fits all three).
>> Ad hominem much?
>>
>
> Repeat yourself much? At least you are accurate this time. Of
> course, as a newcomer you are unaware of Kenny's history. Again, take
> heed and be careful who you attempt to defend (at least until you get
> your bearings straight).

It's not a defense of anyone, it is simply pointing out that this is
transparently, ad hominem. There are those that disagree with me, but
they are dishonorable men of limited intelligence.

--
Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)