Non-Browser javascript Implementations - Rhino
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) online without script, online pharmacy Sildenafil (Kamagra) no prescription, buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) in Salt Lake City, buy cheap Sildenafil (Kamagra) online now
Next: Cursor in a textarea
From: Garrett Smith on 12 Apr 2010 20:51 RobG wrote: > On Apr 13, 7:53 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: > [...] >>> Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"? >>> | [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting >>> | to end users. >> That fact does not make Rhino a browser. >> >> Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and >> ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser. > > Thomas would rather nit-pick at the detail and be obnoxious than solve > the issue efficiently. If you don't get what he thinks he meant the > first time you read what he writes, he thinks you are a complete > idiot. However, if he misunderstands what you write, it's because you > are wrong, didn't explain correctly, or fully, or whatever. > > He is intolerant, expect to be chided. > > >> Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad >> and what is a more appropriate alternative? > > It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser We have: ECMAScript [list] W3C DOM [list] Browser Documentation [list] Javascript Library Groups (Google Groups) [list] "Non-Browser javascript Implementations". [list] It could also very well be titled: "Other ECMAScript Implementations" (at > all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't, > strictly, be called "non-browser". "it" is potentially ambiguous and although I know what you meant, it could be either: 'So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, that browser can't,strictly, be called "non-browser"' - which is a true statement but totally pointless or it could mean: 'So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, then Rhino can't,strictly, be called "non-browser"' - which is not a true statement. Rhino fits that category of non browser because it is an implementation of ECMAScript that is not a browser and not tied to a browser. Regardless, either of "Other" or "Non-browser" is fine by me. I find neither to be confusing in any way. [...] >> >> I don't see any problem with that. > > Perhaps the issue can be resolved by explaining what is meant by "non- > browser", e.g. > > | Non-browser javascript Implementations > > The following implementations are not dependent upon a browser. > I guess. Or could have a title: Other ECMAScript Implementations -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: nick on 12 Apr 2010 21:20 On Apr 12, 8:38 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > nick wrote: > ... > > "Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines" > > Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go? The way I see it, Dashboard Widgets would be a "stand-alone javascript engine" based on webkit, a "browser-based javascript engine." Similarly, node.js would be a "stand-alone javascript engine" based on V8, a "browser-based javascript engine." That way you can have different flavors of the same ES implementation under each category if you need to. -- Nick
From: RobG on 12 Apr 2010 21:24 On Apr 13, 10:38 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > nick wrote: > > On Apr 12, 7:49 pm, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > <snip> > > [...]> I'll cast my vote for: > > "Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines" > > Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go? With the entry for SquirrelFish. On reflection, the section seems a bit muddled (e.g. Whitebeam is not an engine, it is a use of Mozilla's SpiderMonkey). If the intention is to list some javascript engines and uses, perhaps that section should be re-written to firstly link to details of the implementation, then to some examples of its use, e.g. WebKit SquirrelFish: http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/SquirrelFish Used in the WebKit and Safari browsers, can also be used for developing Dashboard Widgets http://developer.apple.com/macosx/dashboard.html Mozilla SpiderMonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/ Used in Mozilla browsers and Whitebeam Apache Module http://www.whitebeam.org/ Digital Mars DMDScript: http://www.digitalmars.com/dscript/ Stand-alone, open source implementation of ECMAScript. and so on. Other engines not listed[1]: 1. Rhino - Mozilla 2. V8 - Google 3. KJS - KDE, Konqueror web browser 4. Narcissus - Mozilla (written in JavaScript, seems to be dependent on SpiderMonkey) 5. Tamarin - formerly by Adobe, now Mozilla 6. ActionMonkey - Mozilla, combination of SpiderMonkey and Tamarin 7. Chakra - Microsoft, for Internet Explorer 9 8. Nitro - precursor to SquirrelFish Or should the entry simply note that there are implementations that aren't dependent on browsers and link to Wikipedia? <FAQENTRY> The link under the item: Win32 Scripting, Using Scripting to Automate Windows http://cwashington.netreach.net/ is no longer active, Win32Scripting has closed its doors. Either a new link is required or the item should be removed. </FAQENTRY> 1. Most of the list came from Wikipedia: <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_engine > -- Rob
From: nick on 12 Apr 2010 21:29 > based on webkit, a "browser-based javascript engine." ^^^^^^ Sorry, I guess that should be SquirrelFish(?) although webkit may be worth mentioning here too.
From: RobG on 12 Apr 2010 21:43
On Apr 13, 10:51 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > RobG wrote: [...] > > It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser > > We have: > > ECMAScript > [list] > > W3C DOM > [list] > > Browser Documentation > [list] > > Javascript Library Groups (Google Groups) > [list] Not sure that section is useful. Prototype.js is just about dead, the jQuery forum has moved to a different site and there are a number of other "popular" libraries whose discussion forums aren't listed. Might be best to say "search for a relevant group". The phrase "or ask in clj" could be added if it is thought such requests will be answered civilly. If not, it will be counter-productive. > "Non-Browser javascript Implementations". > [list] > > It could also very well be titled: > "Other ECMAScript Implementations" Perhaps just a section on ECMAScript implementations and some uses, see my reply to your previous post. > (at > > > all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't, > > strictly, be called "non-browser". > > "it" is potentially ambiguous and although I know what you meant Oh dear, Thomas has gotten to you! :) [...] > I guess. Or could have a title: > > Other ECMAScript Implementations Or just "ECMAScript implementations" -- Rob |