Augmenting Types
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Jorge on 3 Jan 2010 20:11 On Jan 4, 1:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 7:26 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 12:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You truly are a student of Crockford. > > > Yes I am. > > > > For about the millionth time, > > > that method doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like Safari 2. > > > And who cares ? If Safari 2 is broken it's not your/my problem (as > > developers). > > Here we go again. Lacking the hasOwnProperty method does not indicate > that the browser is broken.(...) Safari 2.0.4 does have .hasOwnProperty()... -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 20:16 On Jan 3, 8:11 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 7:26 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 12:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You truly are a student of Crockford. > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > For about the millionth time, > > > > that method doesn't work in "ancient" browsers like Safari 2. > > > > And who cares ? If Safari 2 is broken it's not your/my problem (as > > > developers). > > > Here we go again. Lacking the hasOwnProperty method does not indicate > > that the browser is broken.(...) > > Safari 2.0.4 does have .hasOwnProperty()... That's as maybe. Now check 2.0.3, then 2.02... Or, simply wake up and realize it isn't necessary to worry about such trivia. if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty) { // Your enhancement here }
From: Jorge on 3 Jan 2010 20:17 On Jan 4, 1:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > LOL. So you should just screw all IE users and figure they will be > grateful for the tough love? Are you insane? Don't know where you've been lately, but the days when you had to use IE, yes or yes, are gone. -- Jorge.
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 20:34 On Jan 3, 8:17 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > LOL. So you should just screw all IE users and figure they will be > > grateful for the tough love? Are you insane? > > Don't know where you've been lately, but the days when you had to use > IE, yes or yes, are gone. Huh? I don't know where _you_ have been lately, but many large corporations have endless seas of cubes stocked with IE users. Some even have ActiveX and/or JS disabled _for them_ when using the public Internet. Try that combo (both off) and notice that 90% of the Web falls apart (100% of jQuery-enhanced sites). One thing about corporate users, they all have jobs (and the disposable income that comes with them). And they are known to surf the Internet on occasion. ;) Then there is the Little Old Lady from Pasadena who doesn't know what IE is, let alone FF or the rest. These sites that throw up admonitions to "upgrade" to FF (it's free!) are simply displaying a thorough misunderstanding of their medium. I know you are one of those "JS or die" proponents as well. There are laws you know. Many handicapped people have JS disabled by necessity (and some may even use IE). Does the Little Blind Old Lady from Pasadena want to hear you babble about how her browser sucks? Oddly enough, many little old ladies (even blind ones) have money (and time) to spend on the Internet too. And consider the somewhat similar medium of television. Do you think for a second that broadcasters would knowingly cripple their programming for people with "defective" televisions? Why do you think it took so long for them to pull the plug on over-the-air analog broadcasts? By your way of thinking, who in the world doesn't have cable and/or satellite? Now, what would advertisers think of such thinking? ;)
From: David Mark on 3 Jan 2010 20:43
On Jan 3, 8:34 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 8:17 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 1:45 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > LOL. So you should just screw all IE users and figure they will be > > > grateful for the tough love? Are you insane? > > > Don't know where you've been lately, but the days when you had to use > > IE, yes or yes, are gone. > > Huh? I don't know where _you_ have been lately, but many large > corporations have endless seas of cubes stocked with IE users. Some > even have ActiveX and/or JS disabled _for them_ when using the public > Internet. Try that combo (both off) and notice that 90% of the Web > falls apart (100% of jQuery-enhanced sites). Correction. I meant to say that 100% of jQuery-enhanced sites will fail with ActiveX off (at least if they try to use Ajax). With both off, perhaps 50% (just a guess). That is the only sort of "progressive" enhancement that jQuery and the like allow for (on or off). |