Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

[lorlarz]

"lorlarz" appears to be a bit of an ass, but, just so you're aware of
it, Google Groups (of the non-USENET class) can be accessed as
straightforward mailing lists, rather than via the web. So you shouldn't
rule something out based solely on dislike of the Google Groups interface..
--
John W. Kennedy
  "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
   -- Frederick Crews.  "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

Thanks John.
Indeed, once you go to the site, just click "more info" for the
email address. Also, if you join, you can get posting or
a digest via email. (BTW, I have now given up being an ass.)

 

[Michael Wojcik]

"lorlarz" appears to be a bit of an ass, but, just so you're aware of
it, Google Groups (of the non-USENET class) can be accessed as
straightforward mailing lists, rather than via the web. So you shouldn't
rule something out based solely on dislike of the Google Groups interface.

I'm not keen to subscribe to more mailing lists, either. And my
dislike of Google Groups is partly on principle - they've added a fair
bit of noise to Usenet and caused even more confusion among the
newbies. We really didn't need Google taking the Eternal September
torch from AOL.

Thanks for the tip, though.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

I know may academics think like you do. Many others do not.

How many academics do you know?

Out of curiosity, what does my standing as an "academic" (or, more
likely, your presumption about it) have to do with how you think I think?

Let me guess: you're making some vapid generalization about either my
thought processes or my opinion on some matter (Google Groups? the
need for a forum for ECMAScript programs? how interesting ideas are
disseminated?), from some inane stereotype you hold about "academics",
based solely in the appearance of the phrase "Michigan State
University" in my signature.

I might also note the likelihood that the statement "many academics
agree with X, and many do not" is true for a rather large set of
propositions X, so it's hard to see why it would be an interesting
observation.

I would encourage everyone to read the first 6 or so posts
to the http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps group
to see that there is a rationale for such a group.

I just did. I still don't see what it offers over c.l.javascript and
other existing venues, besides a lousy interface.

If it provides something for you, that's fine by me; but I don't see
that it offers anything I want and don't already have.

 

[Richard Cornford]

lorlarz wrote:

Let me describe one of the more elaborate and fun (and useful
and interactive and multifaceted) JavaScript programs I have
seen, just to give you a sense of how few limitations there
really are on JavaScript for program making.

I might as well say who did the program and where it can be
found, right up front. The maze I will describe was built
with functions via programs from the book, The Art and Science
of JavaScript by Adams, Edwards, Heilmann, Mahemhoff, Pehlivanian,
Webb, Willison (Sitepoint , 2008) Anyhow, this PURELY JavaScript
program allows a user to walk through a very large maze, and
at each step the user can look right and left (and sometimes
straight ahead) and see a different jpeg or gif (or embed).

So it is a navigation system.

Thus, the program can be used, for example, an art display
vehicle OR a walk through history, etc., etc., etc.,

A navigation system.

(The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
grass, walls).)

Extremes of "satisfactory"?

Now that is not only many steps and much interactivity,
producing the "product" a user wants BUT the uses for it
are amazing and highly variable.

What is this "product" in that case? It is an experience; a
planned/semi-guided navigation through a collection of graphical
presentations. Computer program "product" tends towards being intangible
but pure experiences is considerably less tangible than, say, something
like an image file.

In principle, an identical "product" can be achieved with something as
simple as a series of HTML pages congaing an image elements and a list
of hyperlinks to other pages in the sequence. And achieved with no
'programming' at all, just a designed set of declarations.

It also means that any scripted menu system (tree, drop-down or
whatever) satisfies the same requirements for being considered a
"program", despite you dismissing just such an example as "not a
program" and as "just script kiddie stuff".

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

Degrees of "universally useful"? I would have thought "universally
useful" would be an absolute condition; either satisfied by any specific
example or not. In this case not.

javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

 

[lorlarz]

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful) [snip]
javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/underground/underground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
want.
Get the code download:
http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding0

 

[lorlarz]

lorlarz wrote: [snip]

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful) [snip]
javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/underground/underground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
poing
along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
somewhere in that maze example).
Get the code download:
http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding).

 

[lorlarz]

lorlarz wrote: [snip]

This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful) [snip]
javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

Well, look:http://www.brothercake.com/games/underground/underground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
poing
along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
somewhere in that maze example).
Get the code download:http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding).

P.S. I have built a couple of addons to Dan Webb's great
maze program. See: http://mynichecomputing.com/maze/maze.html
and you will see a link, "Open guide in a separate small window".
This addon shows the maze. I also made an addon to help
teachers place the gifs, jpegs, and embeds automatically
at different locations along the walls.
Dan Webb himself provides a "builder" to build different
mazes. There is now a complete kit available to teachers.

By the way, the new google group on javascript applications
now has an additional web page describing it:
http://mynichecomputing.com/rcljsapps/

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Extremes of "satisfactory"?

Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.

 

[Evertjan.]

Michael Wojcik wrote on 27 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.

How usually you experience such rare experiences?

Please don't blame it on satisfaction.

 

[lorlarz]

Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.

I can't image something can't be amazingly satisfactory.
And, as to Cornford's concern about the use of the word
"universal": Well, nothing is universal to all things.
Just a silly guy on that point. Since nothing (at least
nothing interesting to most) is universal to all things,
there thusly would be degrees of universality as the
term is most often used. But, really we all know this.

But, I would love to keep this debate going.

BUT:
This is not some strange correct English language
use group, is it?

 

[RobG]

Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

Since no objective criteria are provided by which to judge whether the
graphics are satisfactory or not, the degree of satisfaction remains a
statement of opinion. And since no demonstration of the application
or even code was provided, we are unable to compare that with what we
might call "satisfactory" and so it remains only the opinion of the
OP.

You can initialise the value of your expected level of satisfaction
based on his or her statements and sample code elsewhere, it may not
be high. Perhaps an example or demonstration will be forthcoming so
that our satisfaction-o-meters can be calibrated more accurately if we
care to do so.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

You can initialise the value of your expected level of satisfaction based
on his or her statements and sample code elsewhere, it may not be high.
Perhaps an example or demonstration will be forthcoming so that our
satisfaction-o-meters can be calibrated more accurately if we care to do
so.

Damn, that does not fit into four lines!!1


Regards,

PointedEars

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Michael Wojcik wrote on 27 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:


How usually you experience such rare experiences?

Heh.

Event A occurs with low probability; but given A, event B occurs with
high probability.

 

[Dan McGrath]

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such arareexperience.

Why did you say "rare"?

- Dan

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>, Thu,

Damn, that does not fit into four lines!!1

"You can initialise the value of your expected level of satisfaction based on
his or her statements and sample code elsewhere, it may not be high. Perhaps an
example or demonstration will be forthcoming so that our satisfaction-o-meters
can be calibrated more accurately if we care to do so." - quoting RobG.

It does fit into four lines. Since signatures should not be quoted, the
best authority I know of (also RC) allows up to 80 characters. Indeed,
in Turnpike, the default margin marker is at 72 when the insertion point
is in ordinary new material, 80 when in the sig, and 144 when in quoted
text. I prefer a sig limit of 79, in case that chap in Oxford is still
reading News on a VT100.

However, it would not be a satisfactory signature, since, like yours, it
does not include what a signature should include.


For anyone using my Easter code : I now have a modestly faster version;
I took ideas from Knuth's Easter (but do not rely on the merit of the
source as a proof of their correctness).

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Why did you say "rare"?

I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
"experience". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
"pleasant".

Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.english?

 

[lorlarz]

[snip]

My understanding of javascript is that it is used more to
create several small programs that appear here and there on a website.For
sure, they can be linked somewhat using cookies and form values, but given
the limitations (i.e. no filesystem i/o, no network i/o except back tothe
same server, etc), the applications tend to be small.

Just out of curiosity, how many in this newsgroup actually
have this sort of limited understanding of JavaScript?

Can't speak for others, but for me ... I agree with neither of you.
[snip]

Both are valid.

Let's get beyond this.  Beyond the basic language and problems
of its use and get to somethings interesting:
http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps

The title sounds somewhat pretentious.  I'd guess, if all I know was
the name, that it's a vanity group with few (or just one) recurring
user, and not likely to be interesting in general.

Starting up a group is not easy unless it covers an existing need,
manages to become visible to the people with that need, and does
so in short enough time that it reaches critical mass. Too few users
at a time just means that those users go away, and new users sees
an even less populated group.

I believe there is an existing need. But I will address
that after quoting more of you.

I don't generally use Google Groups, either, preferring to stay with
Usenet. Have they created a NNTP interface to their non-Usenet groups
yet?


The problems in writing programs in a language can be separated into
the problems inherent to the problem domain (the inherent complexity
of the problem) and the problems deriving from the choice of platform,
language, or other tools (accidental complexity).

The problems that are Javascript related are therefore, to a large
extend, the accidental problems caused by language restrictions or
problems with the target platform (typically web-browsers). Those
problems can, generally, be explained by small snippets of code
that solve that particular problem.
There is a reason it's what we see

Also, many, many users of Javascript on web-pages are not programmers.
They rarely try big programs (and good for them, since it's almost
inevitable that they would fail), so again, their questions are
solved by small snippets of code.

The above paragraph _is_ a problem, a lack of appreciation
of the JavaScript language (for writing big apps)
That is my perspective -- one
clear justification for the new group.

More general problems are typically about algorithms or
data-structures, and would probably fit better in a more general group
than a language-specific one.

Here, I disagree. There are a lot of function in JS for dealing
with the DOM and CSS and a lot of issues about doing so
optimally (one being, what are the better CSS setups?)
(A lot of this is related ONLY to JS and dealing
with display in a browser or the DOM -- JavaScript's
arena) -- thus here is another justification for the group.

I have tried to put the rationales for the group on
a public web site:
http://mynichecomputing.com/rcljsapps

Also, at a certain level of complexity, it might be simpler to use
a framework to generate the pages and scripting, instead of writing
it manually, e.g., GWT. At that point, one will go to the framework's
community with questions instead of here.

/L

ALSO: To not burden THIS newsgroup on the
efficacy of the new google group,
I have set up a blog to talk about the group,
its purpose, need, philosophy, etc.

http://jsapps.blogspot.com/

 

[the Omrud]

I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
"experience". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
"pleasant".

Why did you crosspost to alt.usage.english?

In so far as Dan has a home group, it's AUE where we are used to him.
He is bright but severely autistic; this manifests itself in an
obsession with a small number of words, which he sometime seeks out on
Usenet and one of which you've used.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

In so far as Dan has a home group, it's AUE where we are used to him. He
is bright but severely autistic; this manifests itself in an obsession
with a small number of words, which he sometime seeks out on Usenet and
one of which you've used.

Thanks for the explanation. It's been a while since I last read AUE,
and it's such a high-traffic group that it's hard to remember all the
local characters.

 

[Dan McGrath]

I wrote "rare" because it was the adjective I wanted to modify
"experience". In this particular case, I used it to denote "uncommon"
- perhaps (the reader must guess) with a secondary connotation of
"pleasant".

Since when does "rare" have anything to do with "pleasant"? It
doesn't. It only means "uncommon".

In fact, for me the word "rare" can probably connote *UN*pleasantness.

- Dan, who generally analyzes English as a non-native speaker would