From: Jorge on
On Jan 22, 6:43 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 6:25 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Many regulars in this group would like you to note that there are a
> > number of users who are not willing

BTW, for those "not willing", that's their problem. They could as well
turn CSS off. Or even the network connection for that matter :-)

> > or not able to use Javascript,

Very very few, but yes, there may be someone. Almost every normal
browser has come with JS since 1995/6, IIRC.

> > so
> > it's a good idea to build your documents in a manner that allows
> > reasonable access to your content without Javascript enabled."
>
> Once you've crossed a certain line there's no way to achieve
> "reasonable access" anymore and then the "this site requires
> JavaScript" message becomes appropriate. And crossing it is not a sin,
> as some regulars will try to make you believe.

Furthermore, no one surfing the web in a browser with these essential
features turned off *expects* it to behave as if they were on. For
example, iPhone users don't expect sites based on the proprietary
Flash® API to work... until yesterday (?) http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+gordon+runtime
)
--
Jorge.
From: Jeremy J Starcher on
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:43:14 -0800, Jorge wrote:

> Once you've crossed a certain line there's no way to achieve "reasonable
> access" anymore and then the "this site requires JavaScript" message
> becomes appropriate. And crossing it is not a sin, as some regulars will
> try to make you believe.


Agreed.

I have a few projects that require Javascript .. including an image map
editor, a compiler and a data entry front-end for a LOCAL database.

My choices were:
1) Write then as a web application in Javascript and have them available
to whoever wanted to use them.

2) Write them as a stand alone application in Linux and -greatly- reduce
their availability

3) Break down and learn (re-learn?) Java and create a stand alone
application.

Option (1) was the only one that made sense. Yes, there are some people
who are unable to use the image map editor. But it mostly[1] excludes
the same category of people who couldn't use my web app.


[1] Yes, there may be a few people who are able/willing to download and
run random executables who also have Javascript turned off, but I'm
willing to wager that is a /very/ small minority.
From: Jorge on
On Jan 22, 8:16 pm, Jeremy J Starcher <r3...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> (...)
> 3) Break down and learn (re-learn?) Java and create a stand alone
> application.
> (...)

Java has had plenty of time to prove unequivocally not to be up to its
promised write once run anywhere. That probably isn't solely Sun's
fault, btw, but that's a matter for c.l.java. Instead, JS in a browser
is the ubiquitous VM that might replace it :-)
--
Jorge.
From: JR on
On Jan 22, 5:37 pm, Jorge <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:16 pm, Jeremy J Starcher <r3...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (...)
> > 3) Break down and learn (re-learn?) Java and create a stand alone
> > application.
> > (...)
>
> Java has had plenty of time to prove unequivocally not to be up to its
> promised write once run anywhere. That probably isn't solely Sun's
> fault, btw, but that's a matter for c.l.java. Instead, JS in a browser
> is the ubiquitous VM that might replace it :-)

Python is the best alternative to Java.

--
JR
From: Ivan Marsh on
Jorge wrote:

> On Jan 22, 8:16 pm, Jeremy J Starcher <r3...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (...)
>> 3) Break down and learn (re-learn?) Java and create a stand alone
>> application.
>> (...)
>
> Java has had plenty of time to prove unequivocally not to be up to its
> promised write once run anywhere. That probably isn't solely Sun's
> fault

That's solely Microsoft's fault. They purposefully embraced and enhanced
java into uselessness because they don't want cross-platform technology to
exist.

--
"All right, all right, if it will make you happy, I will overthrow society."
  - Philip J. Fry