Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 11:52
On Dec 21, 11:39 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:59 am, Erwin Moller
>
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...(a)spamyourself.com> wrote:
> > David Mark schreef:
> >> [quoting John Resig] "I was 100% serious about a ban concerning
> >> everything from CLJ.  Please, original ideas/concerns/bug reports/
> >> test cases only."
>
> >> "Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
> >> the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ"
>
> > ReMARKable statements.
> > [ ... ]
> > Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to me.
>
> A little additional context from that thread.  Matt Kruse had pointed
> the jQuery team to David Mark's attribute tests, and John Resig had
> taken the first steps at incorporating them into the jQuery test
> suite.

That was mistake #1 as those tests are for my designs. He needs to
figure out what his methods do before he can test them. ;)

> Then, some posts before the above quote, Resig posted this:
>
> | Just got word from Paul Irish that David Mark is refusing to
> provide
> | an open license for his attribute test suite - in fact he's
> | threatening legal action against me and the Software Freedom
> | Conservancy if we should "cop[y] one word or the tiniest aspect of
> | the design". Naturally, that branch with the test suite has been
> | completely deleted.
>
> I have no idea if Resig's or Irish's understanding is correct.  But
> if David Mark actually made such a threat, it goes a long way
> towards explaining, if not condoning, Resig's attitude.
>

This has been going on for years. He refuses to do his homework.

To clarify, I wasn't talking about the unit tests, but the wrappers,
which are prerequisites for writing a script like jQuery. He's not
taking three years off and then mooching my work. He would just screw
it up anyway (there are several precedents). ;)
From: S.T. on 21 Dec 2009 14:23
On 12/21/2009 5:59 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
> ReMARKable statements.
> Does c.l.j. equal 'David Mark' in their minds?

I suspect clj is more attributed to wasted overkill, as in a twenty-one
post thread about trimming whitespace.

It's a good place to argue and maybe pick up a thing or two amongst the
shrapnel, but that's about it. It's not an 'end result' type of place if
you're looking to accomplish something.

> Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to
> me.
> They did ban you earlier from their fora, right?

If they haven't, they probably should. He whines for a year about an
aspect of the library then, when they say "hmmm... ok, we'll look into
that", they get threatened with a lawsuit in the event a test case
possibly resembles his? Not exactly a useful contributor.

Look at it from their perspective... why would you not just write him
off as a troll?
From: Gregor Kofler on 21 Dec 2009 14:51
S.T. meinte:

[c.l.j]

> It's a good place to argue and maybe pick up a thing or two amongst the
> shrapnel, but that's about it. It's not an 'end result' type of place if
> you're looking to accomplish something.

If the accomplishment is "mastering JS" or "understanding the DOM" or
"get a serious clue about browser scripting", this NG offers plenty of
"end results".
If you are the afficionado of pre-fabricated libraries (which frequently
rules out an interest in understanding) - look elsewhere.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.com
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 16:05
On Dec 21, 2:23 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 5:59 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
>
> > ReMARKable statements.
> > Does c.l.j. equal 'David Mark' in their minds?
>
> I suspect clj is more attributed to wasted overkill, as in a twenty-one
> post thread about trimming whitespace.

Twenty-one posts, huh? How about a fifty+ post thread going around in
circles on attributes/properties? ;)

>
> It's a good place to argue and maybe pick up a thing or two amongst the
> shrapnel, but that's about it.

Hardly.

> It's not an 'end result' type of place if
> you're looking to accomplish something.

What is it _you_ are trying to accomplish?

>
> > Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to
> > me.
> > They did ban you earlier from their fora, right?
>
> If they haven't, they probably should.

And how do you figure that?

> He whines for a year about an
> aspect of the library then, when they say "hmmm... ok, we'll look into
> that",

Bo, you've got the wrong end of the stick.

> they get threatened with a lawsuit in the event a test case
> possibly resembles his? Not exactly a useful contributor.

You need to do some more research. Or perhaps you are just making
things up?

>
> Look at it from their perspective... why would you not just write him
> off as a troll?

If they had an ounce of competence between them, they wouldn't need
anyone to point out the obvious to them (certainly not repeatedly for
years). What should be obvious to you is that they haven't got a clue.
From: Garrett Smith on 21 Dec 2009 18:19
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:59 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...(a)spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> David Mark schreef:
>>> [quoting John Resig] "I was 100% serious about a ban concerning
>>> everything from CLJ. Please, original ideas/concerns/bug reports/
>>> test cases only."
>>> "Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
>>> the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ"
>> ReMARKable statements.
>> [ ... ]
>> Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to me.
>
> A little additional context from that thread. Matt Kruse had pointed
> the jQuery team to David Mark's attribute tests, and John Resig had
> taken the first steps at incorporating them into the jQuery test
> suite. Then, some posts before the above quote, Resig posted this:
>
> | Just got word from Paul Irish that David Mark is refusing to
> provide
> | an open license for his attribute test suite - in fact he's
> | threatening legal action against me and the Software Freedom
> | Conservancy if we should "cop[y] one word or the tiniest aspect of
> | the design". Naturally, that branch with the test suite has been
> | completely deleted.
>
> I have no idea if Resig's or Irish's understanding is correct. But
> if David Mark actually made such a threat, it goes a long way
> towards explaining, if not condoning, Resig's attitude.

Anyone who wants to read c.l.js, but wants to filter messages from a
particular poster may can add an entry to the killfile.

There is not one group attitude here.

John Resig doesn't want to read posts from myself, Lasse, Cornford,
Lahn, Kruse, Jorge, VK, Stockton, or *whoever*, that is *his business*.
I've argued with all of these posters on different points in the past.

Admonishing an entire newsgroup for one person's actions is unfair. More
front end developers should read comp.lang.javascript. Jquery users
especially should read c.l.js. That way they can learn another
perspective on programming RIAs from javascript programmers who do not
use jQuery, hopefully to realize that they don't really need jQuery
after all.

Discouraging others from reading c.l.js might have the effect of keeping
people in the dark.

If learning about javascript is a goal, comp.lang.javascript is the
right place to be.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox