jquery vs dojo vs yui etc
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Interactive web-based graphs for iPads?
Next: FAQ Topic - How can I disable the back button in a web browser? (2010-06-17)
From: Alessio Stalla on 21 Jul 2010 11:28 On Jul 21, 4:42 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article <4c46f2e3$0$31286$607ed...(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > RobG wrote: > > > The fix for that is to run your algebra program on the client. If you > > > care to rewrite it in javascript, it may be of interest. > > > You want me to port 80kloc of a high-level language like Lisp to a toy > > language like JS? How big will the client be then? And how many motnhs > > would that take? > > Now now, no need to sneer. I've just finished writing an e-mail client > using JS (13k lines) for the front-end, PHP (7k lines) for the backend. > No JS libraries in sight and my ajax routine is just 20 lines long. > > I looked at Lisp in 1968 and decided I didn't like it - it didn't appear > to relate to anything. Kenny was very wrong in calling JS a toy language, but you're also wrong if you consider Lisp today as it was in 1968. It would be like comparing Ruby with Pascal :) Lisp generating JS could bring very high-level constructs to JS without the need of a huge library like qooxdoo. For example, you could use macros to define functions which automagically invoke remote services with XHR, without coding them by hand. (defun-remote foo (args)) function foo(args, callback) { ... xhr(args, callback) ... } (defun bar () (do-stuff) (foo 1 2 3) (do-other-stuff)) function bar() { doStuff(); foo(1, 2, 3, function() { doOtherStuff(); }); } you can get the idea. Alessio
From: Kenneth Tilton on 21 Jul 2010 12:24 Tim Streater wrote: > In article > <f7253284-7fc1-47d8-bca3-b3aeca686ec7(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 21, 4:42�pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: >> > In article <4c46f2e3$0$31286$607ed...(a)cv.net>, >> > �Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > RobG wrote: >> > > > The fix for that is to run your algebra program on the client. >> If you >> > > > care to rewrite it in javascript, it may be of interest. >> > >> > > You want me to port 80kloc of a high-level language like Lisp to a >> toy >> > > language like JS? How big will the client be then? And how many >> motnhs >> > > would that take? >> > >> > Now now, no need to sneer. I've just finished writing an e-mail client >> > using JS (13k lines) for the front-end, PHP (7k lines) for the backend. >> > No JS libraries in sight and my ajax routine is just 20 lines long. >> > >> > I looked at Lisp in 1968 and decided I didn't like it - it didn't >> appear >> > to relate to anything. >> >> Kenny was very wrong in calling JS a toy language, but you're also >> wrong if you consider Lisp today as it was in 1968. It would be like >> comparing Ruby with Pascal :) > > Oh quite possibly. But then I didn't like Pascal with its SESE model > either. > >> Lisp generating JS could bring very high-level constructs to JS >> without the need of a huge library like qooxdoo. For example, you >> could use macros to define functions which automagically invoke remote >> services with XHR, without coding them by hand. >> >> (defun-remote foo (args)) >> >> function foo(args, callback) { >> ... xhr(args, callback) ... >> } >> >> (defun bar () >> (do-stuff) >> (foo 1 2 3) >> (do-other-stuff)) >> >> function bar() { >> doStuff(); >> foo(1, 2, 3, function() { doOtherStuff(); }); >> } >> >> you can get the idea. > > Hmmm I must be missing something. Isn't this what functions are supposed > to be for? Many a Lisper makes the mistake of using macros where functions would suffice, ie, yes, macros and fucntions both hide details and often a macro hides no more than could a function hence should be eschewed. Mr. Graham explains it better than anyone: http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html > And I'm not keen on macros (except when using assembler - see > Metasym). After I discovered that C macros knew nothing about C, I stuck > to using the C preprocessor for simple substitutions of the: > > #define wiggy 3 > > variety. > I did OK with the C preprocessor, I just used a lot of parentheses and braces and stuff. One great five-day bug, tho. C macros and Lisp macros have in common the word "macro". Nuff said. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: Matt Kruse on 21 Jul 2010 12:55 On Jul 21, 11:22 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > If you write standard code there *is* no variability, not these days. My > app works pretty identically in five browsers (except IE, fortunately I > have no access to a copy of that, neither do I want one). Problems are easier to solve when you ignore the trouble-makers ;) For those who still contend with IE6, writing js for webapps is still a messy proposition, made easier with prudent use of libraries. Matt Kruse
From: Kenneth Tilton on 21 Jul 2010 13:50 Tim Streater wrote: > In article <4c471da1$0$5009$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Tim Streater wrote: >> > I've just finished writing an e-mail client > using JS (13k lines) >> for the front-end, PHP (7k lines) for the backend. > No JS libraries >> in sight and my ajax routine is just 20 lines long. >> >> Nice. What did the 13k lines translate to in download size? > > Well its not all downloaded at once, but 5.7k lines translates to > 215kbytes. Yikes. These yobbos will kill me if I port ten times that to JS, which could be fifty times that by the time all the Lisp macros get expanded. And my investor (me) will kill me if I spend three months on a port. I think the math editor better stay in Lisp on the server. Naysayers in re that need to remember that Algebra students are generally not entering equations at 60 wpm. We'll see, but so far it looks like a no-brainer. As I said, I have not yet begun to optimize. So are the buttons appearing OK now that each typing example gets loaded separately? http://teamalgebra.com/ Hmmh, I have to figure out how to give diff tabs their own url. Anyone here know how to do that with qooxdoo? :) kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 21 Jul 2010 13:55
On Jul 21, 12:55 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:22 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > If you write standard code there *is* no variability, not these days. My > > app works pretty identically in five browsers (except IE, fortunately I > > have no access to a copy of that, neither do I want one). > > Problems are easier to solve when you ignore the trouble-makers ;) Users (and their agents) cannot be considered "trouble-makers" by professionals. You have to play the hand you are dealt. The recent trend of "not caring" about whatever browsers you can't handle is ridiculous as end-users don't care what you don't care about. > > For those who still contend with IE6, writing js for webapps is still > a messy proposition, No it isn't. IE6 is very much like IE7 (and IE8 can mimic IE7 fairly closely). And as IE6 has been out since the turn of the century, professional developers should know how to deal with it by now. > made easier with prudent use of libraries. Unless you are referring to my library, how backwards can you get? The "major" libraries are notorious for their failures in IE6, so how can they possibly help? Why do you think most library authors have given up on trying to "solve" that browser? They tried for years and never got close, so now they want to wish it out of existence. :( |