From: Evertjan. on
Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

>> I was not discussing your points,
>
>>> but all seem to have good points and bad points.
>
>> Probably you have too. << you made reference to it here.
>
>> Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
>> and you must have leared somthing in the process.
>
> I have indeed.
>
> By the way, you really should check your spelling.

As long as my English is better than your Dutch,
you should not complain in this international NG, methinks.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: S.T. on
On 2/10/2010 2:10 PM, mscir wrote:
> I have to agree, I googled the following text (without the quotes)
> "javascript tree drag and drop"
>
> The first hit included a perfect working example but wasn't free.
> The second hit included a perfect working example that is free.
>

The OP asked for a recommendation, not the top result of a search.
From: Evertjan. on
S.T. wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On 2/10/2010 2:10 PM, mscir wrote:
>> I have to agree, I googled the following text (without the quotes)
>> "javascript tree drag and drop"
>>
>> The first hit included a perfect working example but wasn't free.
>> The second hit included a perfect working example that is free.
>>
>
> The OP asked for a recommendation, not the top result of a search.

A usenet NG is not a paid helpdesk.

THe OP has no right of limitation of the type of responses.

Personally I hope this NG will not become a recommandation place for
scripts a poster is not willing to write himself or to lazy to search for
herself. [m/f to be exchangable]

Using scripts from untrusted sources one does not fully understand is
dangerous business eand should be discouraged.

And if one fully understands, why not write it yourself?

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: David Mark on
Jorge wrote:
> On Feb 11, 11:08 am, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...(a)interxnl.net>
> wrote:
>> And if one fully understands, why not write it yourself?
>
> I fully understand the way my toaster works,

You may well understand how one works, but you are unlikely to
manufacture one.

> my freezer,

Same.

> the washing
> machine, a Scotch Brite��, a bicycle, even my car, a C compiler, a
> truetype font, a JS minifier, a JSON parser, a code128 barcode, the
> gzip algorithm, base64 encoding, an http server, a serial port, a
> digital clock, a keyboard, a microprocessor, a switching-mode DC power
> supply... etc.(*)

There's a well-rounded fellow.

>
> So what ???

My thought exactly.

>
> (*)I don't know how to program a VCR.

A what?
From: David Mark on
Scott Sauyet wrote:

[...]
>
>
>>> (*)I don't know how to program a VCR.
>> A what?
>
> In the days of yore, as you have perhaps heard, video data was not
> streamed across networks, but encapsulated on shimmering discs,
> called, if legend is correct, deeveedees. But there are stories that
> in the days of the Old Gods, before the coming of the DeeVeeDee, video
> was available on a sequential access machine featuring spinning
> spindles and a lodestone. It is said that these veeceeare machines
> could record video transmitted magically through the air, but only the
> wisest of sorcerers knew how to instruct these machines. These
> sorcerers were known as "geeks", an honorific that survives this day.
>

Yes, I was being facetious. But I contend it isn't that hard to program
them (at least once they got on-screen displays).