Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

[Steve Swift]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Also, many, many users of Javascript on web-pages are not programmers.
They rarely try big programs (and good for them, since it's almost
inevitable that they would fail), so again, their questions are
solved by small snippets of code.

This is exactly me. I see something small, perhaps insignificant, on my
webpage and realise it can be improved with a little Javascript. It's
like seeing a board loose in a fence, finding a nail (Javascript) and a
hammer (my editor) and fixing it. Not much effort, but a lot of
satisfaction (when I get it to work). I'm picking up Javascript skills
as I go along. If I live long enough (10,000 years might do) then I'll
be writing operating systems in Javascript. :-)


--
Steve Swift

http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html

http://www.ringers.org.uk

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

lorlarz wrote:

>
Let's get beyond this. Beyond the basic language and problems
of its use and get to somethings interesting:
http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps

That would require using Google Groups, so as far as I'm concerned
it's right out.

I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
programs just because they're "large" or "interestin g"; if they're
*that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
the purpose.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 22, 10:38 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

lorlarz wrote:
>

Let's get beyond this.  Beyond the basic language and problems
of its use and get to somethings interesting:
http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps

>
That would require using Google Groups, so as far as I'm concerned
it's right out.
>
I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
programs just because they're "large" or "interestin g"; if they're
*that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
the purpose.
>
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

I know may academics think like you do. Many others do not.
I would encourage everyone to read the first 6 or so posts
to the http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps group
to see that there is a rationale for such a group.

Regarding Rationale:
One big concern is that the actual JavaScript and the elementals
of the language never get "lost". And, I am concerned that the
library users explain what the libraries they use are doing,
so all of us know.

Second, the group can thusly, at the same time, provide a
showcase for us to compare and judge the libraries (YUI, dojo,
jQuery, prototype et al, Mootools, etc.) for their qualities
and differences. Those are some of the main elements of the
rationale for the group and it makes sense to me.

I, myself, am not the group. If ever a well-known are respected
person wanted to take over as "owner", I would be glad to
turn it over.

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 22, 10:38 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

lorlarz wrote:
>

Let's get beyond this.  Beyond the basic language and problems
of its use and get to somethings interesting:
http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps

>
That would require using Google Groups, so as far as I'm concerned
it's right out.
>
I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
programs just because they're "large" or "interestin g"; if they're
*that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
the purpose.
>
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

I know may academics think like you do. Many others do not.
I would encourage everyone to read the first 6 or so posts
to the http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps group
to see that there is a rationale for such a group.

Regarding Rationale:
One big concern is that the actual JavaScript and the elementals
of the language never get "lost". And, I am concerned that the
library users explain what the libraries they use are doing,
so all of us know.


Second, the group can thusly, at the same time, provide a
showcase for us to compare and judge the libraries (YUI, dojo,
jQuery, prototype et al, Mootools, etc.) for their qualities
and differences. Those are some of the main elements of the
rationale for the group and it makes sense to me.


I, myself, am not the group. If ever a well-known and respected
person wanted to take over as "owner", I would be glad to
turn it over.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

lorlarz wrote:

On Aug 22, 10:38 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

>lorlarz wrote:
>>
>I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
>programs just because they're "large" or "interestin g"; if they're
>*that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
>presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
>definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
>the purpose.

>
I know may academics think like you do. Many others do not.

How many academics do you know?

Out of curiosity, what does my standing as an "academic" (or, more
likely, your presumption about it) have to do with how you think I think?

Let me guess: you're making some vapid generalization about either my
thought processes or my opinion on some matter (Google Groups? the
need for a forum for ECMAScript programs? how interesting ideas are
disseminated?), from some inane stereotype you hold about "academics" ,
based solely in the appearance of the phrase "Michigan State
University" in my signature.

I might also note the likelihood that the statement "many academics
agree with X, and many do not" is true for a rather large set of
propositions X, so it's hard to see why it would be an interesting
observation.

I would encourage everyone to read the first 6 or so posts
to the http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps group
to see that there is a rationale for such a group.

I just did. I still don't see what it offers over c.l.javascript and
other existing venues, besides a lousy interface.

If it provides something for you, that's fine by me; but I don't see
that it offers anything I want and don't already have.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

lorlarz wrote:
<snip>

Let me describe one of the more elaborate and fun (and useful
and interactive and multifaceted) JavaScript programs I have
seen, just to give you a sense of how few limitations there
really are on JavaScript for program making.
>
I might as well say who did the program and where it can be
found, right up front. The maze I will describe was built
with functions via programs from the book, The Art and Science
of JavaScript by Adams, Edwards, Heilmann, Mahemhoff, Pehlivanian,
Webb, Willison (Sitepoint , 2008) Anyhow, this PURELY JavaScript
program allows a user to walk through a very large maze, and
at each step the user can look right and left (and sometimes
straight ahead) and see a different jpeg or gif (or embed).

So it is a navigation system.

Thus, the program can be used, for example, an art display
vehicle OR a walk through history, etc., etc., etc.,

A navigation system.

(The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
grass, walls).)

Extremes of "satisfacto ry"?

Now that is not only many steps and much interactivity,
producing the "product" a user wants BUT the uses for it
are amazing and highly variable.

What is this "product" in that case? It is an experience; a
planned/semi-guided navigation through a collection of graphical
presentations. Computer program "product" tends towards being intangible
but pure experiences is considerably less tangible than, say, something
like an image file.

In principle, an identical "product" can be achieved with something as
simple as a series of HTML pages congaing an image elements and a list
of hyperlinks to other pages in the sequence. And achieved with no
'programming' at all, just a designed set of declarations.

It also means that any scripted menu system (tree, drop-down or
whatever) satisfies the same requirements for being considered a
"program", despite you dismissing just such an example as "not a
program" and as "just script kiddie stuff".

<snip>

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

Degrees of "universall y useful"? I would have thought "universall y
useful" would be an absolute condition; either satisfied by any specific
example or not. In this case not.

javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 26, 9:02 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

lorlarz wrote:
>

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

[snip]

javascript programs I have seen.

>
But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.
>
Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
want.
Get the code download:

http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding0

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 26, 9:02 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

lorlarz wrote:

[snip]

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

[snip]

javascript programs I have seen.

>
But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.
>
Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
poing
along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
somewhere in that maze example).
Get the code download:

http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding).

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 26, 10:14 am, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail. comwrote:

On Aug 26, 9:02 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>

lorlarz wrote:

[snip]

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

[snip]

javascript programs I have seen.

>

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

>

Richard.

>
Well, look:http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
poing
along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
somewhere in that maze example).
Get the code download:http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/
>
I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding).

P.S. I have built a couple of addons to Dan Webb's great
maze program. See: http://mynichecomputing.com/maze/maze.html
and you will see a link, "Open guide in a separate small window".
This addon shows the maze. I also made an addon to help
teachers place the gifs, jpegs, and embeds automatically
at different locations along the walls.
Dan Webb himself provides a "builder" to build different
mazes. There is now a complete kit available to teachers.

By the way, the new google group on javascript applications
now has an additional web page describing it:

http://mynichecomputing.com/rcljsapps/

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

Richard Cornford wrote:

lorlarz wrote:
>

>(The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
>grass, walls).)

>
Extremes of "satisfacto ry"?

Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

[Evertjan.]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

Michael Wojcik wrote on 27 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javas cript:

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.
>

How usually you experience such rare experiences?

Please don't blame it on satisfaction.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[lorlarz]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 27, 11:42 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

lorlarz wrote:

>

(The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
grass, walls).)

>

Extremes of "satisfacto ry"?

>
Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.
>
I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.
>
--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

I can't image something can't be amazingly satisfactory.
And, as to Cornford's concern about the use of the word
"universal" : Well, nothing is universal to all things.
Just a silly guy on that point. Since nothing (at least
nothing interesting to most) is universal to all things,
there thusly would be degrees of universality as the
term is most often used. But, really we all know this.

But, I would love to keep this debate going.

BUT:
This is not some strange correct English language
use group, is it?

[RobG]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Aug 28, 2:42 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

lorlarz wrote:

>

(The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
grass, walls).)

>

Extremes of "satisfacto ry"?

>
Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

Since no objective criteria are provided by which to judge whether the
graphics are satisfactory or not, the degree of satisfaction remains a
statement of opinion. And since no demonstration of the application
or even code was provided, we are unable to compare that with what we
might call "satisfacto ry" and so it remains only the opinion of the
OP.

You can initialise the value of your expected level of satisfaction
based on his or her statements and sample code elsewhere, it may not
be high. Perhaps an example or demonstration will be forthcoming so
that our satisfaction-o-meters can be calibrated more accurately if we
care to do so.


--
Rob

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

RobG wrote:

You can initialise the value of your expected level of satisfaction based
on his or her statements and sample code elsewhere, it may not be high.
Perhaps an example or demonstration will be forthcoming so that our
satisfaction-o-meters can be calibrated more accurately if we care to do
so.

Damn, that does not fit into four lines!!1


Regards,

PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

Evertjan. wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote on 27 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javas cript:
>

>I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
>rare experience.

>
How usually you experience such rare experiences?

Heh.

Event A occurs with low probability; but given A, event B occurs with
high probability.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University