There I fixed it?

[David Mark]

The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
of duct tape was just mentioned on TV. I tried it and:-

JavaScript - http://thereifixedit.com/

Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Undefined variable: jQuery
Error thrown at line 1, column 1 in
http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.5.3/jquery-ui.min.js:
(function($){$.ui={plugin:{add:function(module,option,set){var
proto=$.ui[module].prototype;for(var i in
set){proto.plugins=proto.plugins||[];proto.plugins.push([option,set]);}},call:function(instance,name,args){var
set=instance.plugins[name];if(!set){return;}
JavaScript -
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam...&u_cd=32&u_nplug=13&u_nmime=283&flash=10.0.42

Linked script not loaded
JavaScript -
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam...&u_cd=32&u_nplug=13&u_nmime=283&flash=10.0.42

jQuery UI is the duct tape of widget libraries. How do people think it
is a good idea to pile these things up on their sites? It's hard enough
to maintain jQuery alone. Throw in a rag-tag assortment of widgets and
this is what can be expected.

 

[Scott Sauyet]

The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
of duct tape was just mentioned on TV.  I tried it and:-

JavaScript -http://thereifixedit.com/

Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Undefined variable: jQuery

Yes, good catch. They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in. Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?

 

[Helbrax]

Yes, good catch.  They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in.  Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, the web site owner probably
wouldn't understand the problem in the first place. Most of the folks
I've worked with that "judiciously" chose JQuery know less about
javascript than I do(and that's saying a lot ).

 

[David Mark]

Yes, good catch.

Not really. It's plain as day for anyone who happens to turn on error
reporting.

They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in.

And the failure was immediate. Wonder how they missed it.

Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?

Of course not. If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem. And who would I
report it to anyway? Customer service? Do you really think they'd have
any idea what I was talking about? I've been down that road many times.
It's a waste of time.

Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners?

 

[David Mark]

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, the web site owner probably
wouldn't understand the problem in the first place. Most of the folks
I've worked with that "judiciously" chose JQuery know less about
javascript than I do(and that's saying a lot ).

Exactly. And you don't sound like a jerk. No need to tiptoe around the
obvious. The query was clearly baiting.

 

[Scott Sauyet]

Exactly.  And you don't sound like a jerk.  No need to tiptoe around the
obvious.  The query was clearly baiting.

It was, and I offer a half-hearted apology. I think posting your
critique is a little silly if it's not paired with an actual attempt
to help.

But there was no reason for me to call you out on it. Everyone here
probably knew that you didn't bother.

 

[Scott Sauyet]

The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
of duct tape was just mentioned on TV.  I tried it and:-
[ ... ]

They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in.

And the failure was immediate.  Wonder how they missed it.

Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?

Of course not.  If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem.  And who would I
report it to anyway?  Customer service?  Do you really think they'd have
any idea what I was talking about?  I've been down that road many times..
  It's a waste of time.

Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners?  

I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
haven't followed it up.

-- Scott

 

[David Mark]

It was, and I offer a half-hearted apology.

I half-heartedly accept.

I think posting your
critique is a little silly if it's not paired with an actual attempt
to help.

Not really. There are new people in this group every day. Recently one
asked specifically about jQuery and why it was constantly panned in
here. I do what I can to point out the follies out there.

But there was no reason for me to call you out on it. Everyone here
probably knew that you didn't bother.

But the implication seems to be that I never bother, which is patently
untrue. I've reported lots of bugs in sites (as well as libraries) over
the years. I've found that such reports often go unheeded and responses
run the range from total ignorance to open hostility. It's just not
worth my time (particularly these days). Now, if you pay me to do it...

 

[David Mark]

The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
of duct tape was just mentioned on TV. I tried it and:-
[ ... ]
They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in.

And the failure was immediate. Wonder how they missed it.

Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?

Of course not. If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem. And who would I
report it to anyway? Customer service? Do you really think they'd have
any idea what I was talking about? I've been down that road many times.
It's a waste of time.

Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners?

I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
haven't followed it up.

Good for you. And I don't mean that in an ironic sense. Don't hold
your breath on it getting fixed though.

But who knows? Maybe they are one in a million. I just don't like
those odds.

 

[David Mark]

Scott Sauyet wrote:
The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
of duct tape was just mentioned on TV. I tried it and:-
[ ... ]
They defined a plug-in before the library into which
it plugs in.
And the failure was immediate. Wonder how they missed it.

Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
they can fix it?
Of course not. If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem. And who would I
report it to anyway? Customer service? Do you really think they'd have
any idea what I was talking about? I've been down that road many times.
It's a waste of time.

Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners?

I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
haven't followed it up.

Good for you. And I don't mean that in an ironic sense. Don't hold
your breath on it getting fixed though.

But who knows? Maybe they are one in a million. I just don't like
those odds.

And, as an aside, do you not see the cause and effect at work here? I
reported the problem, which resulted in you taking action. That's also
how I managed to fix a lot of problems in jQuery without actually having
to go through the headaches of dealing with its developers.

 

[Scott Sauyet]

Not really.  There are new people in this group every day.  Recently one
asked specifically about jQuery and why it was constantly panned in
here.  I do what I can to point out the follies out there.

So do you think pointing out that one site tried to use the jQuery
variable before it was defined in some way helps users decide whether
to use jQuery? Would the equivalent misuse of My Library found in the
wild be a strike against it?

 

[David Mark]

So do you think pointing out that one site tried to use the jQuery
variable before it was defined in some way helps users decide whether
to use jQuery? Would the equivalent misuse of My Library found in the
wild be a strike against it?

No. It just goes to show what the typical jQuery code monkey is capable
of. Imagine putting something like that into production. Are they kidding?