Page 3 of 5

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:03 pm
by Luke
akimm wrote:but i'm saying, thats not to say you can then add it to my server. Thereby changing my sites HTML elements.
javascript can't change anything server-side either... not all by itself anyway.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:19 pm
by akimm
Ok My mistake, thats what I thought. Your talks just confused me hehe. Much knowledge flying about I suppose can get confusing when you're not familier as the other discussers are with the material.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:20 pm
by akimm
Wow everah, I never knew you could do crap like that. Thats uncouth!

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm
by RobertGonzalez
akimm wrote:Wow everah, I never knew you could do crap like that. Thats uncouth!
That's why you always validate server-side. You never know when someone is going to get stupid on you and try something like that.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:54 pm
by akimm
Yea, thats definetly motivation to validate.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:56 pm
by timvw
Everah wrote:Dude, frappr sucks without Javascript. It is nasty, seriously.
Burrito wrote:I don't understand people's fear of JS....it seems totally unfounded to me. What is it about JS that pushes people off? Is it just that it's something new and unknown to them? Is it that it can be someone erratic in different browsers? What is it that scares them away?
I think most fears stems back from JS being a client side utility that does stuff on the client. It may go way back to the days of the great cookie scare, but I would guess it has something to do with people being feaked out about things happening on their machine because a website deep in cyberland wanted it to happen that way.
Frappr had security bugs due to XmlHttp and JavaScript... That would be a good reason to me :P

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:58 pm
by Luke
what does uncouth mean?

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:59 pm
by timvw
Burrito wrote:I don't understand people's fear of JS....it seems totally unfounded to me. What is it about JS that pushes people off? Is it just that it's something new and unknown to them? Is it that it can be someone erratic in different browsers? What is it that scares them away?
eratic in different browser? I consider that as an understatement :P

I'm scared when i look back at the ways people have tried to overcome rendering differences between versions of Internet Explorer, Gecko and Opera last couple of years (and they didn't know/care that html is 'rendered' completely different on a character based terminal :p)... I don't want to experience the same with even more differences in the existing ecma implementations....

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:02 pm
by timvw
ole wrote: AJAX is important. I don't think it can be ignored. Any good developer should be conversant in AJAX (not me yet, I've only tickered) but I don't expect every new website to use AJAX, ever.
I know many good, even kick-arse developers that don't have the faintest idea about the existence of AJAX.... But that's probably because they don't target the web...

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:05 pm
by feyd
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:what does uncouth mean?
un‧couth  /ʌnˈkuθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-kooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. awkward, clumsy, or unmannerly: uncouth behavior; an uncouth relative who embarrasses the family.
2. strange and ungraceful in appearance or form.
3. unusual or strange.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE uncūth (see un-1, couth2); c. D onkond]

—Related forms
un‧couth‧ly, adverb
un‧couth‧ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. discourteous, rude, uncivil. See boorish. 3. odd, unfamiliar.
—Antonyms 1. courteous.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:06 pm
by timvw
Burrito wrote: but you can hardly blame the language itself for people using or 'mis-using' it. It's also not fair to paint a negative picture of it based on people's implementation of it...flashy or not.
Actually, how much is a language worth if there isn't a 'standard' implementation?

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
by RobertGonzalez
feyd wrote:
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:what does uncouth mean?
un‧couth  /ʌnˈkuθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-kooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. awkward, clumsy, or unmannerly: uncouth behavior; an uncouth relative who embarrasses the family.
2. strange and ungraceful in appearance or form.
3. unusual or strange.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE uncūth (see un-1, couth2); c. D onkond]

—Related forms
un‧couth‧ly, adverb
un‧couth‧ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. discourteous, rude, uncivil. See boorish. 3. odd, unfamiliar.
—Antonyms 1. courteous.
Very nice. I thought to myself once, 'I bet feyd can't double as a dictionary'. I guess I was wrong. 8O

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:27 pm
by feyd
Everah wrote:Very nice. I thought to myself once, 'I bet feyd can't double as a dictionary'. I guess I was wrong. 8O
The "internet" doubles as my dictionary. I have no need to be a human one, although I probably could memorize a great percentage of one rather quickly. But enough off-topic silliness.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:00 pm
by akimm
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:what does uncouth mean?
It means in a sense, not good.

the online dictionary would give you something like this, "coarse: lacking refinement or cultivation or taste".

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:04 pm
by akimm
So does anyone know anything about Dojo, we've discussed its cons, what of its pros?

Any other extensions you'd like to discuss, and also, can anyone explain to me the importance of frameworks? Like PHPCAKE or CAKEPHP whatever it was, and others akin to it?