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: Gregor Kofler on 27 Jul 2010 15:27 Am 2010-07-27 21:15, Ry Nohryb meinte: > On Jul 27, 6:29 pm, Matt Kruse<m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: >> Basically, I don't see your point. (...) > > That there's nothing in CRs that produce memory leaks, that CRs can be > garbage collected properly, that CRs are useful, that CRs are a > perfectly OK thing to do. As expandos, BTW. That what's broken is IE. > That JavaScript/The Web coding style should not be dictated by IE's > bugs no longer, not any more, that statements such as "don't use NFEs" > or "circular references produce memory leaks" are bullshit, that > you're fighting the wrong enemy. That the problem isn't CRs or NFEs, > that the problem is Microsoft, Microsoft's attitude, and its Internet > Explorers. That there are at least 4 very good alternatives to solve > this no-problem: Safari, Chrome, Opera and FireFox. And that the > people (the users) should receive this message clear and loudly and > asap, because that's the reason that will make them want to switch to > a better browser, to one that's not broken. > > But they need to be told. They're not programmers. They don't know > what's going on. They need to receive the message clearly. They don't care what's going on. And they don't need to know, either. They are the customers. If you tell them you'd only code for W3C compliant browsers, and they should kindly use the browser, you request, they will most likely move on to some competitor, who is capable of dealing with IEs shortcomings. [over the top rants snipped] What have you been smoking lately? Gregor -- http://www.gregorkofler.com
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 15:25 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: >> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> 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. You're not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX applications, which is to say, you're arguing a proprietary path. If you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper garbage collection). -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 16:21 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> Matt Kruse wrote: >>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> 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. >> You're not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX >> applications, which is to say, you're arguing a proprietary path. > > He's not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX. So he > is arguing that ActiveX requires IE? That's not entirely accurate, > but no matter as I don't see the relevancy of any of it. You choose not to see. >> If you >> can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then >> you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper >> garbage collection). >> > > 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 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. 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. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 16:52 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: >>>> Matt Kruse wrote: >>>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> 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. >>>> If you >>>> can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then >>>> you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper >>>> garbage collection). >>> You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's >>> choice of browser. 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. >> If you can deploy ActiveX, then you can deploy No IE. > That's not true. Many projects of mine (including My Library) use > ActiveX (e.g. XHR, DirectX, etc.), and yet they work just fine in > other browsers. 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. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy
From: Alan Gutierrez on 28 Jul 2010 17:35
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. Online shopping is one application of the web, but there are others. 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. >>> 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. >> 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? (I feel like a clj sensei now.) -- Alan Gutierrez - alan(a)blogometer.com - http://twitter.com/bigeasy |