Finally got this project onlne using run basic

[rf]

First Richard might have something called a life, and second, he might
be developing something that starts slow and ends up like Phar Lap.

Dead eh?

 

[cwdjrxyz]

But you tried to validate the actual code page.

I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
coded.

In the required Doctype, you tell the validator that you want the page
encoded as a certain type of html or xhtml. If the w3c validator finds
anything that does not follow the rules of the type of html or xhtml
you specify in the Doctype, it rightly reports a error. But the w3c
has other validator Doctype selections for special situations. For
example, they have a validator for SMIL which is a special xml
language.

As an example, you will often find that a html 4.01 page that
contains Javascript and that validates perfectly, will become full of
errors caused by the script if you convert the code to xhtml. The
reason for many of these errors is that the JS code contains XML
errors, and an xhtml page must be coded with proper xml context,
because a xhtml page can contain only html, only xml, or both. If you
serve the xhtml page properly as application/xhtml+xml , the page is
parsed as very strict xml and the least little error often will give
an error message rather than a view of the page.

In the case of Javascript, there are special xml open and close tags
you can place around the script to tell the parser and validator that
what is contained within this tag set is not part of the xhtml code.
Or you can use an external Javascript. Even a plain html page has a
comment tag that you can use to tell the parser that this is not part
of the html. I have seen many things that the w3c validator complains
about over the years, but I have not yet been able to prove that it
made an error rather than myself. I admit that,in some cases, I likely
have wasted too much time finding out what the cause of the error is.
There are errors made by the validator from time to time, and the w3c
has a way to report these. They also describe often reported "errors"
that are not errors and describe why they are not errors.

 

[richard]

The HTML in the iframe produces no less that 100 validation errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...t:8008/seaside/go/runbasicpersonal?app=truck1

Gee really? When I checked it showed 209.

...which is not terribly surprising since you're doing lots of server
round-trips/reloads to produce the 'expanded' bits, nothing too amazing
there.


...man, it's slow on broadband too.

Then I'd bitch to the supplier. I'm on verizon wifi and have no
problems.

Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most of us
could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a rainy Saturday
afternoon while watching the football.

Actually, I developed the expanding tree thing in a matter of a few
hours. It was a lot easier than trying to show/hide divisions.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
I developed the expanding tree part.

There is no javascript anywhere in the program.

"So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
right? Wrong!"

Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
how to write it, it would be far better).

 

[dorayme]

"So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
right? Wrong!"

Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
how to write it, it would be far better).

Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?

 

[Harlan Messinger]

And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
fact that all of those errors came from the same line?
That I have no control over. That is generated by the programmer and
the way he programmed the output to read.

If your reaction to being told that mistakes are mistakes is to show
contempt, don't ask for help.

If there are 599 errors but they are all on one line, do you think that
means it isn't a problem? What do you think "one line" means, anyway?
All it means is that the code doesn't have a line break anywhere inside
it, which means nothing in HTML because an entire web page can be
written without a single line break.

Do you think that if something that's causing a problem is not in your
control to resolve, then it suddenly isn't a problem?

I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.

It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
language into useable html, has some quirks to it. As html does not
understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
identifier for use within the language.

I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.

Does it not occur to you that perhaps the validator is *correct* and
that if you don't know why it's flagging an error, it might be because
you are ignorant of something important? Gosh, you are just perfection
itself in your own eyes, aren't you?

I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.

I'm completely failing to see why you're going off on this tangent when
the errors the validator is complaining about are in the *HTML*. Not
Java. Not RunBasic. Not Visual Basic. *HTML*.

 

[asdf]

Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?

I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language), that so
far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript (serverside), C, PERL,
PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.

There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas that
have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that basically (pun)
does what all the others already do?

 

[asdf]

And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
fact that all of those errors came from the same line?
That I have no control over. That is generated by the programmer and
the way he programmed the output to read.

If that is the case, then the ouput is not useful.

I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.

Then (to quote a famous fictional character)... "Make it so". Fix it. If you
want people to evaluate the work on it's merits, then that is what we have
done. We can't be expected to comment on the usefulness (or otherwise) of
this thing unless you can show that it produces valid markup. This is an
HTML group, not a basic group.

It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
language into useable html, has some quirks to it. As html does not
understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
identifier for use within the language.

I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.

I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.

....but, my dear fellow, there is NO run basic embedded in it's output. ROFL.
We are commenting on the HTML *output* of Yet Another Programming Language.
Not on the language itself. Again... this is an HTML group.

 

[rf]

I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language),
that so far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript
(serverside), C, PERL, PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.

There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas
that have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that
basically (pun) does what all the others already do?

This one is different. All of the others fail to output invalid HTML.

 

[richard]

I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language), that so
far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript (serverside), C, PERL,
PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.

There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas that
have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that basically (pun)
does what all the others already do?

Agreed. But simplicity rules. VB works only in IE. PHP requires a vast
knowledge of how it works and implements the use of javascript quite
often. Run Basic has implemented many things to make coding easier and
simpler. You know what it takes to create a simple button right?
How about this for simplicity?
button #name, "button",[gohere]
and link #name, "link",[gohere] produces a standard link.
[gohere] means within the program, not a web page.

Run Basic has many of the same features PHP has but keeps it simpler.

 

[richard]

Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?

Precisely. Flash was first scoffed at and now you can't live without
it.
In 1995 pages were done entirely in tables. CSS comes along and a
whole new way of doing things was born.
I know I did my first web page purely in tables. Then learned CSS.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

On 2009-03-24, richard wrote:
http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
I developed the expanding tree part.

There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
"So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
right? Wrong!"

Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
how to write it, it would be far better).
Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?

I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language), that so
far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript (serverside), C, PERL,
PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.

There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas that
have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that basically (pun)
does what all the others already do?

Agreed. But simplicity rules. VB works only in IE. PHP requires a vast
knowledge of how it works and implements the use of javascript quite
often.

??? PHP, which runs on the server, is used to generate code that gets
sent to the client, whether HTML or Javascript or Java applets or
VBScript or MathML or whatever. It doesn't "implement" Javascript or any
of these others at all.

Run Basic has implemented many things to make coding easier and
simpler. You know what it takes to create a simple button right?
How about this for simplicity?
button #name, "button",[gohere]
and link #name, "link",[gohere] produces a standard link.
[gohere] means within the program, not a web page.

Run Basic has many of the same features PHP has but keeps it simpler.

For all your going on about Run Basic, it's 100% irrelevant to the
browser, which only reads the code sent by the server and doesn't have
the foggiest notion what programming technology was used to generate it,
and has no reason to know. If the code that reaches the browser is bad,
it's equally bad no matter how cool or wonderful you think the
server-side software is.

 

[asdf]

Agreed. But simplicity rules. VB works only in IE.

Complete garbage. Server-side VBScript works on IIS *at the server*. It
still outputs (given a reasonable programmer) valid HTML which can be read
by any browser on any platform.

PHP requires a vast
knowledge of how it works and implements.

Nope. It requires that you can read the manual. Like any other YAPL.

the use of javascript quite
often. Run Basic has implemented many things to make coding easier and
simpler. You know what it takes to create a simple button right?
How about this for simplicity?
button #name, "button",[gohere]
and link #name, "link",[gohere] produces a standard link.
[gohere] means within the program, not a web page.

....and that is simpler than PHP (or any other procedural language) how,
exactly?

In PHP, just write a 'button' function (a one liner), or a 'link' function
(one line again), then call just as easily as runbasic...

Not hard, and *infinitely* more flexible, as I'm not tied to how the
programming language *thinks* a button should be coded. I can control *how*
the HTML is constructed, which means I can 'future proof' my code easily.

Mean time savings for runbasic: 2 minutes. I think I can afford that
"complication" for the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that it
is widely supported, and I can easily upgrade my code to new standards
should the need arise.

The coding scheme above merely indicates that *it* (runbasic) will decide on
the markup that will produce the button. You have irrevocably tied your
application logic to the visual (or otherwise) output. Horrible.

Run Basic has many of the same features PHP has but keeps it simpler.

....but PHP gives you the flexibility of doing things differently, should the
need arise (like new, as yet unreleased, HTML standards) which your code
proves runbasic cannot, apparently.

Does runbasic have a ready-to-go PDF library? A graphics library? A Kerberos
library?

Can I write my own libraries? If so, then it's not really simplifying things
much!

 

[asdf]

Precisely. Flash was first scoffed at and now you can't live without
it.

You're kidding right?

 

[dorayme]

Precisely. Flash was first scoffed at and now you can't live without
it.

You are not wrong mate, if the bloke that lives opposite me does not put
his raincoat on at least once a day to scream outside when the local
priest and nuns are walking past and give them a quick flash, my day
just lacks that zing that makes everything worthwhile...

 

[dorayme]

You're kidding right?

No, he is not kidding and you will never understand Richard until you
have hauled a few hundred head of cattle up the spine of a continent in
a big rig, stopping regularly to throw back a slab of beer with Travis
as a willing grogging hitchhiker.

 

[asdf]

No, he is not kidding and you will never understand Richard until you
have hauled a few hundred head of cattle up the spine of a continent in
a big rig, stopping regularly to throw back a slab of beer with Travis
as a willing grogging hitchhiker.

Just call me Thelma (or Louise) )

 

[rf]

Proof of concept also includes the proof that it can be done *correctly*.
With, somebody said, hundreds of errors I would suggest that this is not
being done *correctly*.

Precisely. Flash was first scoffed at and now you can't live without
it.

Oh yes I can. I don't have flash even installed on most of my browsers.
Those that don't give me the option have flashblock installed.

In 1995 pages were done entirely in tables.

Were they? In any case RFC 1947 (detailing HTML tables) was published in May
1996.

CSS comes along and a
whole new way of doing things was born.
I know I did my first web page purely in tables.

Yes. I remember you doing that. Took months IIRC.

Then learned CSS.

I remember that too.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Chris, this is just a proof of concept.

No, it's disproof of concept.

It may be the beginning of a glorious new dawn for the internet.

Possibly -- viewed through layers of smog.

Have you no faith?

Faith is a dirty word.

 

[Neredbojias]

Agreed. But simplicity rules. VB works only in IE. PHP requires a
vast knowledge of how it works and implements the use of javascript
quite often. Run Basic has implemented many things to make coding
easier and simpler. You know what it takes to create a simple button
right? How about this for simplicity?
button #name, "button",[gohere]
and link #name, "link",[gohere] produces a standard link.
[gohere] means within the program, not a web page.

Run Basic has many of the same features PHP has but keeps it simpler.

Actually, I found php no harder to learn than DOS basic back ...then,
and easier than Visual Basic which I dabbled in about 10 years ago.
Have you given php an honest try?