FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing todo.
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Javascript exception control
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I format a Number as a String with exactly 2 decimal places? (2010-07-28)
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 23:43 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. Why should I seek out more of you when I've got you right here, ignoring a salient point? Task at hand. >> 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. You can't refute the argument so you keep misdirecting the argument. 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. 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, and then I invite you to refute the relevance of that point to the discussion, otherwise, if you refuse to accept reason, then please find some other tactful way to concede. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 29 Jul 2010 00:51 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. >> 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. Conversations with you are a luxury I afford myself. I see no profit in them, time or money, other that perhaps to get you open your mind to new ideas. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 29 Jul 2010 01:20 David Mark wrote: > 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. ;) Yes. Exactly. Except by money, I mean costs. Should have made that clear. I believe your starting to see my point. Is there hope that you might see the reasoning, yet? >> 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? :) I'm having a go at reasoning with you. Again you've done nothing to address any sort of point. I'm sure that if you could be right, you would be right, but you can't be right, so you just do this thing you do. In any case, compromise is inherent in software. More platforms means more costs. Valid choice is to narrow platform support to favor the platforms of the future. Another valid choice might be to support the platforms of the past, but I choose not to. You can choose to support all platforms, as well. Choices, choices, choices. All valid. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Stefan Weiss on 29 Jul 2010 13:10
On 29/07/10 16:17, Ry Nohryb wrote: > It's hard to tell what worries [Steve Ballmer] the most when he's not > on cocaine. [...] > The ~ null penetration in web servers ? That's not even close to reality: http://news.netcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wpid-overallc.png > Linux? Are you sure? http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-na-monthly-201001-201007 > The plummeting market share of IE ? Are you sure? http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-na-monthly-201001-201007 It's true that MS are losing their monopoly in many of the areas you stated, but they're not doing nearly as badly as you think. Wishful thinking, perhaps? >> (...) Others in this thread have rightly argued that circular >> references with host objects is a bad idea regardless of IE's >> particular issues. (...) > > Is that a saying ? Why is it a bad idea? Because they (well, it's been > only Asen) have said so but have given no proof nor reason for it to > be so, except that IE leaks. Because it isn't bad per se. CRs aren't > neither good nor bad. It's just that the word has spread that CRs leak > memory, which is false. IEs are what are a bad idea, not the CRs. Circular references aren't bad per se. In certain data structures, they're even required. It's true that they present a problem for reference counting garbage collectors, but there are strategies for working around that (sweeping/tracing). IE, with its dependance on external COM objects, has a lot more trouble breaking these reference cycles. There have been some improvements in IE7 (and patched versions of IE6, IIRC), but the leaks are still a lot more pronounced in IE than in other browsers. I wonder if they've finally managed to tackle this problem in IE9. In the meantime, we can either avoid creating circular references where possible, or break them ourselves - e.g. by nulling variables or properties, or by calling faux destructor methods when a problematic object is no longer required. >> But the main point is that there are techniques >> almost as easy to use that don't cause problems in what is still the >> most widely-used browser. Why not use them? > > Because there's no need. Because there are much more interesting > things to code and think about than workarounds for Microsoft IEs' > bugs. If you can afford to ignore IE's memory issues, you're leading a charmed life. Many of us have to deal with this and other IE-related problems in our jobs every day. I can't just tell my clients to switch the whole company over to a different browser, just so that some little script of mine doesn't cause memory leaks. They'd probably find it more economical to switch to a different JS developer instead. > And because we should not circumscribe the web to the least common > denominator (for cross browserness) when the least common denominator > is a fraction of what it would be if it were not for IE. I sympathize with your position, I really do, but the fact of the matter is that most people in this business can't afford to ignore IE. All we can do is create awareness of the problems, and create enough bad publicity for MS to force them to do something about it. It looks like they're finally starting to get their act together with IE9, but it's still too soon to tell. And we'll still have to live with the older IE versions for quite some time. That said, there are situations where it's possible to wean people and even smaller companies away from IE6. One strategy that I've employed for this purpose is to calculate the price for an intranet project as usual, and then offer a significant discount if they agree to ditch IE6 in favor of a more standards compliant browser. The discount doesn't cost me anything, because I'm saving a lot of time in development, and now the company has a financial incentive to finally upgrade their browsers. -- stefan |