FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Richard Cornford on 28 Jul 2010 18:25 Alan Gutierrez wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: >> Alan Gutierrez wrote: <snip> >>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers >>> do not support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is >>> relevant to Matt. I assume he is saying that is an argument >>> in favor of IE. >> >> It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about >> IE. There are business in the world that have intranets on >> which they have browser-based applications that they use in >> order to conduct their business. Some of these applications >> use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do things that ordinary web >> browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these businesses will >> not be giving these applications up because they need/want >> them. So in these environments the browser installed on the >> business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE. >> >> If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you >> have to cope with IE, because if you don't the sales will go >> to your competition, because the client dictates the environment. >> >> That is the reality in web application development, but it has >> obvious implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. >> If someone working for such a business is going to do a bit of >> online shopping during their breaks (and there is no point in >> pretending that they don't) then they will be using IE to do >> it. Now the online shop that doesn't support IE is losing the >> business to its competitors that do. And remember that these >> potential customers are, by definition, in employment, and very >> often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of customers most >> business want). > > If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology > like ActiveX, I am not. What I am doing is designing/building web applications for business use. > then it is the case that there are situations where the application > matters more than the browser, Possibly, but those decisions are made by the client's IT department, and are not open for negotiation. > so requirements dictate the browser instead of the browser > dictating the requirements. For me a requirement is that the browser is not dictated, but rather accommodated. > Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want > to target the iPad, You want to target? So this is purely personal project where you make the business decisions? > people obviously have disposable income, Logically that is only 'had' disposable income, as they may have disposed of it on the iPad ;-) > I can use HTML 5 and JavaScript and have enough return on > investment to not worry about people taking call center > breaks. "Call centre breaks"? The business I was thinking of were the ones that use the software I write, including a dozen or so of the world's largest financial institutions (who cannot be named due to confidentiality clauses in contracts, but hence my allusion to "well paid") and all of whom have IE (and often IE 6) only desktops business wide. > Online shopping is one application of the web, but there are others. Yes, though it is the application of the web where it is most obvious where the money is coming from. Then there is advertising/promotion; widespread and again often interested in attracting the attention of the well paid. > Let's say I want a single purpose front end and the entire > organization is committed to running one application and > wants the shortest path to a working application. So, I > choose Chrome and HTML 5 and a JavaScript implementation > that has property garbage collection. Fine, you can say whatever you like, but if your customers will not play ball then they won't be your customers. That may not always matter but sometimes (indeed often) it will. >>>> You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the >>>> end-user's choice of browser. >>> >>> If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE. >> >> If someone else has already deployed ActiveX on an Intranet >> then it is too late to start insisting that a customer only >> use non-IE browser. > > If someone else has made a decision to limit the platform, > then it is obviously the case that a decision to limit the > platform can be made, is made, that this is something that > can occur. Obviously, but the decision that the vast majority of real business make is to limit browser use to IE only. >>> If you are in a position to say no to a one group of >>> browsers, then you are in a position to say no to >>> another group of browsers. >> >> And if you were never in a position to say either? > > And if you were always in a position to say both? <snip> "Always"? That sounds like a very specialised context that most people are unlikely to find themselves in (often, if ever). Matt's point in response to Jorge's suggestion is an observation of the market as it is today (and some explanation of why the market is the way it is). People will act to service that market, that will undermine Jorge's grand scheme for dictating browsers, and since the scheme relies on everyone going along with it, it must then fail. Richard.
From: Scott Sauyet on 28 Jul 2010 22:30 Alan Gutierrez wrote: > You seem to bring it back to your choice of platform and your business > and your personal preferences. The fact remains that Jeorge is correct > in his argument that, if you choose not to support browsers that do not > provide a proper garbage collector, then these issues of circular > references do not matter. That point is obvious enough to those paying attention to be almost tautological. But Jorge was arguing much further that taking advantage of this and writing scripts that would obviously fail in IE would be an effective technique to either move people away from IE or convince MS to fix its browser. That argument is much less clear. Most of the people who've tried that, I imagine, have found themselves fairly disappointed in the results; unemployment is rarely pleasant. -- Scott
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 22:53 On Jul 28, 7:33 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 5:35 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> Richard Cornford wrote: > >>> Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate > >>>>>>>>> intranet environment, where webapps can create and > >>>>>>>>> manipulate MSOffice objects to integrate existing business > >>>>>>>>> documents with database-driven webapps. Your other "Big 4" > >>>>>>>>> browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. > >>>>>>>> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing > >>>>>>>> to do with the web. > >>>>>>> Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. > >>>>>> You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a > >>>>>> decision not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count > >>>>>> on correct garbage collection. If there is a problem, he can > >>>>>> dictate the browser. > >>>>> And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge > >>>>> is the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his > >>>>> head. "El Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. > >>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers > >>>> do not support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is > >>>> relevant to Matt. I assume he is saying that is an argument > >>>> in favor of IE. > >>> It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about IE. There > >>> are business in the world that have intranets on which they have > >>> browser-based applications that they use in order to conduct their > >>> business. Some of these applications use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do > >>> things that ordinary web browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these > >>> businesses will not be giving these applications up because they > >>> need/want them. So in these environments the browser installed on the > >>> business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE. > >>> If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you have to cope > >>> with IE, because if you don't the sales will go to your competition, > >>> because the client dictates the environment. > >>> That is the reality in web application development, but it has obvious > >>> implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. If someone > >>> working for such a business is going to do a bit of online shopping > >>> during their breaks (and there is no point in pretending that they > >>> don't) then they will be using IE to do it. Now the online shop that > >>> doesn't support IE is losing the business to its competitors that do. > >>> And remember that these potential customers are, by definition, in > >>> employment, and very often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of > >>> customers most business want). > >> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like > >> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the > >> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the > >> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. > > >> Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want to target the > >> iPad, people obviously have disposable income, I can use HTML 5 and > >> JavaScript and have enough return on investment to not worry about > >> people taking call center breaks. > > > Targeting the iPad would be a silly thing to do on the Web. Very > > silly. > > > As you seem to favor long-winded posts, get a load of one of mine:- > > >http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/msg/81bc... > > I am not interested. Odd for someone trying to horn in on the iPad market. Whatever. :) > I am only interested in driving home the point that > you have yet to refute. You have no *relevant* point. Please drive home now. :)
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 23:53 On Jul 28, 11:43 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 7:33 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 5:35 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> Richard Cornford wrote: > >>>>> Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >>>>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > >>>>>>>> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate > >>>>>>>>>>> intranet environment, where webapps can create and > >>>>>>>>>>> manipulate MSOffice objects to integrate existing business > >>>>>>>>>>> documents with database-driven webapps. Your other "Big 4" > >>>>>>>>>>> browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. > >>>>>>>>>> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing > >>>>>>>>>> to do with the web. > >>>>>>>>> Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. > >>>>>>>> You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a > >>>>>>>> decision not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count > >>>>>>>> on correct garbage collection. If there is a problem, he can > >>>>>>>> dictate the browser. > >>>>>>> And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge > >>>>>>> is the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his > >>>>>>> head. "El Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. > >>>>>> Both of which arguments? Matt is saying that the other browsers > >>>>>> do not support ActiveX. Maybe I misunderstand why this is > >>>>>> relevant to Matt. I assume he is saying that is an argument > >>>>>> in favor of IE. > >>>>> It isn't an argument about IE, it is just an observation about IE. There > >>>>> are business in the world that have intranets on which they have > >>>>> browser-based applications that they use in order to conduct their > >>>>> business. Some of these applications use ActiveX (because ActiveX can do > >>>>> things that ordinary web browsers just cannot, in some cases) and these > >>>>> businesses will not be giving these applications up because they > >>>>> need/want them. So in these environments the browser installed on the > >>>>> business's (likely 'locked down') desktops will be IE. > >>>>> If you want to sell into that sort of environment then you have to cope > >>>>> with IE, because if you don't the sales will go to your competition, > >>>>> because the client dictates the environment. > >>>>> That is the reality in web application development, but it has obvious > >>>>> implications for the general web, particularly e-commerce. If someone > >>>>> working for such a business is going to do a bit of online shopping > >>>>> during their breaks (and there is no point in pretending that they > >>>>> don't) then they will be using IE to do it. Now the online shop that > >>>>> doesn't support IE is losing the business to its competitors that do. > >>>>> And remember that these potential customers are, by definition, in > >>>>> employment, and very often in well-paid employment (exactly the sort of > >>>>> customers most business want). > >>>> If it is the case that you are deploying a proprietary technology like > >>>> ActiveX, then it is the case that there are situations where the > >>>> application matters more than the browser, so requirements dictate the > >>>> browser instead of the browser dictating the requirements. > >>>> Therefore, if I'm building a web application and I want to target the > >>>> iPad, people obviously have disposable income, I can use HTML 5 and > >>>> JavaScript and have enough return on investment to not worry about > >>>> people taking call center breaks. > >>> Targeting the iPad would be a silly thing to do on the Web. Very > >>> silly. > >>> As you seem to favor long-winded posts, get a load of one of mine:- > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/msg/81bc.... > >> I am not interested. > > > Odd for someone trying to horn in on the iPad market. Whatever. :) > > You are referencing yourself. Talking about writing Web sites/apps that work as well on the iPhone/ iPad as they do on the desktop. If you choose to ignore that, then go ahead and "target" the iPad, but don't say I didn't warn you. ;) > Why should I seek out more of you when > I've got you right here, ignoring a salient point? Task at hand. There's no task at hand. The relevant part of this discussion is long over. > > >> I am only interested in driving home the point that > >> you have yet to refute. > > > You have no *relevant* point. Please drive home now. :) > > I also say the point is relevant, and you have yet to refute that. Refute that your point is relevant? > You > can't refute the argument so you keep misdirecting the argument. I'm not arguing with you at all. I've long-since informed you that I'm uninterested in this irrelevant offshoot. > You > actually have an interesting habit of removing the part that you're > supposed to refute, and then picking up on a word, "seems" or "iPad" and > setting up your straw men around that. No, I rarely snip anything, much to the chagrin of some regulars here. I did in this case as I had no interest in the your continuing (and seemingly unending) attempts to drive home a point that is irrelvant to the discussion. > > So, I invite you to refute my point that platform is a choice, therefore > is is just as logical to choose the platform of the future instead of > the platform of the past, That's easy enough. You don't need to choose at all. You could have saved some time by reading the post I cited. ;) > and then I invite you to refute the relevance > of that point to the discussion, > Richard has already explained that to you two or three times. > otherwise, if you refuse to accept > reason, then please find some other tactful way to concede. And I concede nothing and don't have to give you a reason. :)
From: David Mark on 29 Jul 2010 00:55
On Jul 29, 12:51 am, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 28, 11:43 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 7:33 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>> David Mark wrote: > >>>>> On Jul 28, 5:35 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Richard Cornford wrote: > > >>>> I am only interested in driving home the point that > >>>> you have yet to refute. > >>> You have no *relevant* point. Please drive home now. :) > >> I also say the point is relevant, and you have yet to refute that. > > > Refute that your point is relevant? > > >> You > >> can't refute the argument so you keep misdirecting the argument. > > > I'm not arguing with you at all. I've long-since informed you that > > I'm uninterested in this irrelevant offshoot. > > I have no evidence that the point is irrelevant. You're waving you > hands, but you are not being reasonable. It is now, in my experience, a > place you retreat to when you cannot offer reason, to simply declare the > point irrelevant, or say that someone else made the point for you. > > I can only assume that you can't make a point on your own. Making assumptions about me is a slippery slope. > > > > >> You > >> actually have an interesting habit of removing the part that you're > >> supposed to refute, and then picking up on a word, "seems" or "iPad" and > >> setting up your straw men around that. > > > No, I rarely snip anything, much to the chagrin of some regulars > > here. I did in this case as I had no interest in the your continuing > > (and seemingly unending) attempts to drive home a point that is > > irrelvant to the discussion. > > >> So, I invite you to refute my point that platform is a choice, therefore > >> is is just as logical to choose the platform of the future instead of > >> the platform of the past, > > > That's easy enough. You don't need to choose at all. You could have > > saved some time by reading the post I cited. ;) > > Compromise is inherent in software. More platforms means more money. So narrowing your choices means less money. ;) > Conversations with you are a luxury I afford myself. Well, if you are ever feeling the pinch, you might want to try out our utilitarian Jorge line. > I see no profit in > them, time or money, other that perhaps to get you open your mind to new > ideas. > What are you my therapist now? :) |