L
Laser Lips
Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and drop
functionality?
Graham
functionality?
Graham
Can anyone recommend a JavaScript Tree with drag and dropfunctionality?
E
Evertjan.
Laser Lips wrote on 01 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
Google is your friend.
Google is your friend.
L
Laser Lips
Yeah I found tones but all seem to have good points and bad points.
Graham
E
Evertjan.
Laser Lips wrote on 02 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
Tones as in a number of 1000 kg?
Probably you have too.
Better learn Javascript end build your own.
This NG is not, I hope not,
about discussing third party javascript scripts.
Tones as in a number of 1000 kg?
Probably you have too.
Better learn Javascript end build your own.
This NG is not, I hope not,
about discussing third party javascript scripts.
E
Evertjan.
Hans-Georg Michna wrote on 04 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
Yes it is, when moost wheels are still square instread of round,
asking for the best imitation of round is not enough.
This NG is about Javascript,
not about the reusability of black boxes,
even if they contain something written in Javascript,
unless the subject is about the content and
not about the blackbox external experience.
You wrote the comma:
Javascript is a good language, inasfar it's useability, programmability
and logic teaching is concerned, and it is an object-oriented programming
language.
But it is NOT a "good object-oriented" programming language,
in the sense of use of black box modules,
beacause of many reasons, for instance:
It is designed to work on many interpreters, the quality of whicl differs
so, that the working of black box module cannot be garanteed.
The extend of the blackbox testing cannot be complete in this sense.
Black boxes in general are a bad idea without a service contract with a
reliable source, given that a build yourself programme has the benefit of
the programmer always being available for added debugging.
There is something as the "joy of programming", that is absent in the
sense of such boxes.
Yes it is, when moost wheels are still square instread of round,
asking for the best imitation of round is not enough.
This NG is about Javascript,
not about the reusability of black boxes,
even if they contain something written in Javascript,
unless the subject is about the content and
not about the blackbox external experience.
You wrote the comma:
Javascript is a good language, inasfar it's useability, programmability
and logic teaching is concerned, and it is an object-oriented programming
language.
But it is NOT a "good object-oriented" programming language,
in the sense of use of black box modules,
beacause of many reasons, for instance:
It is designed to work on many interpreters, the quality of whicl differs
so, that the working of black box module cannot be garanteed.
The extend of the blackbox testing cannot be complete in this sense.
Black boxes in general are a bad idea without a service contract with a
reliable source, given that a build yourself programme has the benefit of
the programmer always being available for added debugging.
There is something as the "joy of programming", that is absent in the
sense of such boxes.
L
Laser Lips
Better learn Javascript end build your own.
Thanks for helpful comments Evertjan.
I have done exaclty that.
And yes I do have good points and bad points. It's called being
human.
Graham
Thanks for helpful comments Evertjan.
I have done exaclty that.
And yes I do have good points and bad points. It's called being
human.
Graham
E
Evertjan.
Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
You are welcome.
Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
and you must have leared somthing in the process.
I was not discussing your points,
but if you say so ..
Such points are not restricted to human beings,
as Javascript has them too.
You are welcome.
Good for you, now hopefully you have exactly what you want,
and you must have leared somthing in the process.
I was not discussing your points,
but if you say so ..
Such points are not restricted to human beings,
as Javascript has them too.
L
Laser Lips
Evertjan,
I have indeed.
By the way, you really should check your spelling.
Graham
I have indeed.
By the way, you really should check your spelling.
Graham
E
Evertjan.
Laser Lips wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
As long as my English is better than your Dutch,
you should not complain in this international NG, methinks.
As long as my English is better than your Dutch,
you should not complain in this international NG, methinks.
J
Jorge
What an asshole.
D
David Mark
No. Start with a nested lists, enhance to expand/collapse on click
(there have been examples posted here in the past) and then worry about
drag and drop (if you really feel you need that). Using a turnkey
"solution" will never pan out.
So to speak. More like a bumbling lackey.
Nice contribution. Get better, Jorge!
(there have been examples posted here in the past) and then worry about
drag and drop (if you really feel you need that). Using a turnkey
"solution" will never pan out.
So to speak. More like a bumbling lackey.
Nice contribution. Get better, Jorge!
S
S.T.
The OP asked for a recommendation, not the top result of a search.
D
David Mark
mscir said:
Careful with those demos. If you are referring to this one:-
http://dhtmlx.com/docs/products/dhtmlxTree/index.shtml
....it's a mess of browser sniffs under the hood. Hard to believe they
are trying to charge money for it.
http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/index.html?whichScript=drag-drop-folder-tree
It's free, but hasn't been updated since 2006. That could mean one of
two things. It's such a perfect cross-browser rendition that it needs
no updates (highly unlikely) or it is abandoned. I didn't look into it,
but it is always safest to assume that these things are bunkware.
Sometimes. It's very hard to find good JS examples, but that can't be
pinned on Google. There are just too many amateurs publishing too many
dubious scripts. They piece them together based on the UA string and
correlated observations and then either abandon them or waste everyone's
time with continuous do-overs and missives about "deprecated" browsers.
The users don't read the trades, so they don't know (or care to know)
that their browsers have been arbitrarily excluded to accommodate
incompetent developers.
E
Evertjan.
S.T. wrote on 10 feb 2010 in comp.lang.javascript:
A usenet NG is not a paid helpdesk.
THe OP has no right of limitation of the type of responses.
Personally I hope this NG will not become a recommandation place for
scripts a poster is not willing to write himself or to lazy to search for
herself. [m/f to be exchangable]
Using scripts from untrusted sources one does not fully understand is
dangerous business eand should be discouraged.
And if one fully understands, why not write it yourself?
A usenet NG is not a paid helpdesk.
THe OP has no right of limitation of the type of responses.
Personally I hope this NG will not become a recommandation place for
scripts a poster is not willing to write himself or to lazy to search for
herself. [m/f to be exchangable]
Using scripts from untrusted sources one does not fully understand is
dangerous business eand should be discouraged.
And if one fully understands, why not write it yourself?
J
Jorge
I fully understand the way my toaster works, my freezer, the washing
machine, a Scotch Brite®™, a bicycle, even my car, a C compiler, a
truetype font, a JS minifier, a JSON parser, a code128 barcode, the
gzip algorithm, base64 encoding, an http server, a serial port, a
digital clock, a keyboard, a microprocessor, a switching-mode DC power
supply... etc.(*)
So what ???
(*)I don't know how to program a VCR.
D
David Mark
Jorge said:
You may well understand how one works, but you are unlikely to
manufacture one.
There's a well-rounded fellow.
My thought exactly.
A what?
S
Scott Sauyet
Obviously, the OP would learn most from writing this code and not from
using someone else's version. But the trouble is that this can extend
much further, and it's hard to know where to stop. He would learn
still more by writing his own ECMAScript implementation, and a browser
to house it. But that needs a good operating system to run on, and
he'd learn even more by writing his own OS. Of course a better OS
could use a more sophisticated chip-set... and maybe eventually we
need to look at genetic engineering.
Of course that's facetious [1]. But there is a real point in there.
You not only learn more, but you get the results best fitting your
individual needs by building things yourself. But the learning curve
may be so high that it's not worth the investment of your time. I've
built my own bicycles from parts, but would never try with a car.
Sure I'd lean a lot, but it's simply not worth it to me. When I have
automotive questions that are over my head, I consult with those who
know more about it, friends and acquaintances first; paid experts if
that fails. Asking in cljs, especially for someone who posts here
from time to time, is probably closer to the asking acquaintances end.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good recommendation to make, myself.
I've used several over the years and never found one I liked. But it
was never important enough to me to build my own, either.
In the days of yore, as you have perhaps heard, video data was not
streamed across networks, but encapsulated on shimmering discs,
called, if legend is correct, deeveedees. But there are stories that
in the days of the Old Gods, before the coming of the DeeVeeDee, video
was available on a sequential access machine featuring spinning
spindles and a lodestone. It is said that these veeceeare machines
could record video transmitted magically through the air, but only the
wisest of sorcerers knew how to instruct these machines. These
sorcerers were known as "geeks", an honorific that survives this day.
-- Scott
____________________
[1] Don't you love the word fAcEtIOUs, with all the vowels in
order?
J
Jorge
That the logic in "if one fully understands" --> "write it yourself"
is broken.
J
Jorge
Obviously, the OP would learn most from writing this code and not from
using someone else's version. But the trouble is that this can extend
much further, and it's hard to know where to stop. He would learn
still more by writing his own ECMAScript implementation, and a browser
to house it. But that needs a good operating system to run on, and
he'd learn even more by writing his own OS. Of course a better OS
could use a more sophisticated chip-set... and maybe eventually we
need to look at genetic engineering.
Exactly.
D
David Mark
Scott Sauyet wrote:
[...]
Yes, I was being facetious. But I contend it isn't that hard to program
them (at least once they got on-screen displays).
[...]
Yes, I was being facetious. But I contend it isn't that hard to program
them (at least once they got on-screen displays).