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

[Dan McGrath]

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

On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such arareexperience .

Why did you say "rare"?

- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

In comp.lang.javas cript message <48B65702.70900 09@PointedEars. de>, Thu,
28 Aug 2008 09:42:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@we b.de>
posted:

>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

"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." - quoting RobG.

It does fit into four lines. Since signatures should not be quoted, the
best authority I know of (also RC) allows up to 80 characters. Indeed,
in Turnpike, the default margin marker is at 72 when the insertion point
is in ordinary new material, 80 when in the sig, and 144 when in quoted
text. I prefer a sig limit of 79, in case that chap in Oxford is still
reading News on a VT100.

However, it would not be a satisfactory signature, since, like yours, it
does not include what a signature should include.


For anyone using my Easter code : I now have a modestly faster version;
I took ideas from Knuth's Easter (but do not rely on the merit of the
source as a proof of their correctness).

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

[Michael Wojcik]

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

Dan McGrath wrote:

On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:
>

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

>
Why did you say "rare"?

I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
"experience ". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
"pleasant".

Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.engli sh?

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

[lorlarz]

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

On Aug 22, 11:11 am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l...@hotpop.co mwrote:

lorlarz <lorl...@gmail. comwrites:

On Aug 21, 10:07 pm, Mike Duffy <resp...@newsgr oup.onlywrote:
[snip]

>

My understanding of javascript is that it is used more to
create several small programs that appear here and there on a website.For
sure, they can be linked somewhat using cookies and form values, but given
the limitations (i.e. no filesystem i/o, no network i/o except back tothe
same server, etc), the applications tend to be small.

>

Just out of curiosity, how many in this newsgroup actually
have this sort of limited understanding of JavaScript?

>
Can't speak for others, but for me ... I agree with neither of you.
>

[snip]

>
Both are valid.
>

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

>
The title sounds somewhat pretentious.  I'd guess, if all I know was
the name, that it's a vanity group with few (or just one) recurring
user, and not likely to be interesting in general.
>
Starting up a group is not easy unless it covers an existing need,
manages to become visible to the people with that need, and does
so in short enough time that it reaches critical mass. Too few users
at a time just means that those users go away, and new users sees
an even less populated group.

I believe there is an existing need. But I will address
that after quoting more of you.

>
I don't generally use Google Groups, either, preferring to stay with
Usenet. Have they created a NNTP interface to their non-Usenet groups
yet?
>

Some must be sick of the small problems with snippets
and explaining just the basics of the language.

>
The problems in writing programs in a language can be separated into
the problems inherent to the problem domain (the inherent complexity
of the problem) and the problems deriving from the choice of platform,
language, or other tools (accidental complexity).
>
The problems that are Javascript related are therefore, to a large
extend, the accidental problems caused by language restrictions or
problems with the target platform (typically web-browsers). Those
problems can, generally, be explained by small snippets of code
that solve that particular problem.
There is a reason it's what we see :)
>
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.

The above paragraph _is_ a problem, a lack of appreciation
of the JavaScript language (for writing big apps)
That is my perspective -- one
clear justification for the new group.

>
More general problems are typically about algorithms or
data-structures, and would probably fit better in a more general group
than a language-specific one.

Here, I disagree. There are a lot of function in JS for dealing
with the DOM and CSS and a lot of issues about doing so
optimally (one being, what are the better CSS setups?)
(A lot of this is related ONLY to JS and dealing
with display in a browser or the DOM -- JavaScript's
arena) -- thus here is another justification for the group.

I have tried to put the rationales for the group on
a public web site:

http://mynichecomputing.com/rcljsapps

>
Also, at a certain level of complexity, it might be simpler to use
a framework to generate the pages and scripting, instead of writing
it manually, e.g., GWT. At that point, one will go to the framework's
community with questions instead of here.
>
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
 DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
  'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

ALSO: To not burden THIS newsgroup on the
efficacy of the new google group,
I have set up a blog to talk about the group,
its purpose, need, philosophy, etc.

http://jsapps.blogspot.com/

[the Omrud]

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

Michael Wojcik wrote:

Dan McGrath wrote:

>On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:
>>

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

>Why did you say "rare"?

>
I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
"experience ". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
"pleasant".
>
Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.engli sh?

In so far as Dan has a home group, it's AUE where we are used to him.
He is bright but severely autistic; this manifests itself in an
obsession with a small number of words, which he sometime seeks out on
Usenet and one of which you've used.

--
David

[Michael Wojcik]

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

the Omrud wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

>Dan McGrath wrote:

>>Why did you say "rare"?

>>
>Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.engli sh?

>
In so far as Dan has a home group, it's AUE where we are used to him. He
is bright but severely autistic; this manifests itself in an obsession
with a small number of words, which he sometime seeks out on Usenet and
one of which you've used.

Thanks for the explanation. It's been a while since I last read AUE,
and it's such a high-traffic group that it's hard to remember all the
local characters.

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

[Purl Gurl]

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

Michael Wojcik wrote:

the Omrud wrote:

>Michael Wojcik wrote:

>>Dan McGrath wrote:

>>>Why did you say "rare"?

>>Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.engli sh?

>In so far as Dan has a home group, it's AUE where we are used to him. He
>is bright but severely autistic; this manifests itself in an obsession
>with a small number of words, which he sometime seeks out on Usenet and
>one of which you've used.

Thanks for the explanation. It's been a while since I last read AUE,
and it's such a high-traffic group that it's hard to remember all the
local characters.

Why did you say "hard"?

How hard can this be to remember Purl Gurl?

--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.

[Dan McGrath]

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

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:33:39 -0400, Michael Wojcik
<mwojcik@newsgu y.comwrote:

>Dan McGrath wrote:

>On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:
>>

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

>>
>Why did you say "rare"?

>
>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>"experience" . In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
>- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
>"pleasant".
>

Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"? It
doesn't. It only means "uncommon".

In fact, for me the word "rare" can probably connote *UN*pleasantnes s.

- Dan, who generally analyzes English as a non-native speaker would
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com

[Oleg Lego]

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


On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:49:23 -0400, Dan McGrath posted:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:33:39 -0400, Michael Wojcik
><mwojcik@newsg uy.comwrote:
>

>>Dan McGrath wrote:

>>On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.comwrote:
>>>
>>>I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a rare experience.
>>>
>>Why did you say "rare"?

>>
>>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>>"experience ". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
>>- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
>>"pleasant".
>>

>Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"? It
>doesn't. It only means "uncommon".
>
>In fact, for me the word "rare" can probably connote *UN*pleasantnes s.
>
>- Dan, who generally analyzes English as a non-native speaker would

Enough!
It is with regret that I place you in my killfile.

--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you

[HVS]

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

On 04 Sep 2008, Dan McGrath wrote

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:33:39 -0400, Michael Wojcik
><mwojcik@newsg uy.comwrote:
>

>Dan McGrath wrote:

>>On Aug 27, 12:42 pm, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsgu y.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory.
>>>It's such a rare experience.
>>>
>>Why did you say "rare"?

>>
>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>"experience" . In this particular case, I used it to denote
>"uncommon" - perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary
>connotation of "pleasant".
>>

Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"? It
doesn't. It only means "uncommon".

Utter bollocks. (But not rare, unfortunately.)

"A rare wine" implies a good wine and a pleasant one -- not just an
uncommon one.

In fact, for me the word "rare" can probably connote
*UN*pleasantnes s.

Well, goody for you; that has absolutely no bearing on its other
meanings.

- Dan, who generally analyzes English as a non-native speaker
would

You're flattering yourself, Daniel: non-native speakers also
generally analyse what they've been told.

And you have also done this, in the past.

I'm convinced you can do it again; and I think you're now simply
choosing not to do so, or given up trying to.

[Michael Wojcik]

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

Dan McGrath wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:33:39 -0400, Michael Wojcik
<mwojcik@newsgu y.comwrote:
>

>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>"experience" . In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
>- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
>"pleasant".
>>

Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"?

Since at least 1596, according to the OED.

It doesn't.

Usually a vapid claim, for any pair of word and meaning. Can you show
that there is no significant group of English speakers for whom "rare"
sometimes takes the connotation "pleasant"? If not, on what grounds
can you claim that "rare" never has that association? What would it
even mean to state that a given word does not have a given connotation?

It only means "uncommon".

So "rare meat" is uncommon meat? "Rare atmosphere" is uncommon
atmosphere? A "rare earth" is an uncommon earth?

In fact, for me the word "rare" can probably connote *UN*pleasantnes s.

I believe you've just provided a counterargument to your previous
sentence.

Enough.

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

[Mike Duffy]

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

Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsgu y.comwrote in
news:g9pp0d321i k@news1.newsguy .com:

>
"Rare atmosphere" is uncommon atmosphere?

The molecules are comparatively rare (uncommon) per unit volume.

A "rare earth" is an uncommon earth?

The full expression is: "Rare earth metal". These metals are uncommon.

Enough.

Agreed. And you forgot "rarebit".

[Chuck Riggs]

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

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:40:37 -0400, Michael Wojcik
<mwojcik@newsgu y.comwrote:

>Dan McGrath wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:33:39 -0400, Michael Wojcik
><mwojcik@newsg uy.comwrote:
>>

>>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>>"experience ". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
>>- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
>>"pleasant".
>>>

>Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"?

>
>Since at least 1596, according to the OED.
>

>It doesn't.

>
>Usually a vapid claim, for any pair of word and meaning. Can you show
>that there is no significant group of English speakers for whom "rare"
>sometimes takes the connotation "pleasant"? If not, on what grounds
>can you claim that "rare" never has that association? What would it
>even mean to state that a given word does not have a given connotation?

My parents, both born in 1924, one on the West Coast and one on the
East Coast, often applied "rare" in a complimentary way to mean
someone was exceptionally funny or intelligent, which I think they
more or less equated.
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

[Chuck Riggs]

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

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:52:35 GMT, Mike Duffy <respond@newsgr oup.only>
wrote:

>Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsgu y.comwrote in
>news:g9pp0d321 ik@news1.newsgu y.com:
>
>

>>
> "Rare atmosphere" is uncommon atmosphere?

>
>The molecules are comparatively rare (uncommon) per unit volume.
>
>
>

> A "rare earth" is an uncommon earth?

>
>The full expression is: "Rare earth metal". These metals are uncommon.
>
>
>

>Enough.

>
>Agreed. And you forgot "rarebit".

As in "Welsh rarebit", where the "rarebit" is a misunderstandin g (What
is the fancier term?) for "rabbit".
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

[Barbara Bailey]

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

Chuck Riggs wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

>>Dan McGrath wrote:

>>Michael Wojcik wrote:

>>>I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
>>>"experience" . In this particular case, I used it to denote
>>>"uncommon" - perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary
>>>connotatio n of "pleasant".

>>Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"?

>>Since at least 1596, according to the OED.

>>It doesn't.

>>Usually a vapid claim, for any pair of word and meaning. Can you show
>>that there is no significant group of English speakers for whom "rare"
>>sometimes takes the connotation "pleasant"? If not, on what grounds
>>can you claim that "rare" never has that association? What would it
>>even mean to state that a given word does not have a given
>>connotation ?

My parents, both born in 1924, one on the West Coast and one on the
East Coast, often applied "rare" in a complimentary way to mean
someone was exceptionally funny or intelligent, which I think they
more or less equated.

At least since 1848.

"‘T is heaven alone that is given away,
‘T is only God may be had for the asking;
There is no price set on the lavish summer,
And June may be had by the poorest comer.

"And what is so rare as a day in June?
Then, if ever, come perfect days;
...."

certainly doesn't mean that June has only a few days, or that they are
less common than in other months. It means that June days are especially
fine -- as near to perfect as days ever are..