| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178946 is a reply to message #178945] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 00:59   |
Christoph Becker
Messages: 91
Registered: June 2012
Karma:
|
Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 11:42 AM, Christoph Becker wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2012 9:46 AM, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> > On 8/22/2012 6:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> >> Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 8/22/2012 1:18 AM, sismaster wrote:
>>>> >>>>> i want to know how can i see what object include in java script
>>>> >>>>> and is
>>>> >>>>> there any tool to see what object contains
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> > And how can PHP see what objects are included in Javascript?
>>>>
>>>> Actually it can't. But Thomas didn't say so (please note the carets,
>>>> which might not be aligned properly in the news reader, but are so in
>>>> the source code of the message).
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but that was the original question, wasn't it?
>>
>> I'm not sure about that. In fact the OP didn't even mention PHP. Well,
>> he posted on c.l.php, but it might well have been the wrong newsgroup. I
>> *guess* the OP just wanted to know some way to inspect JS objects, what
>> was already answered by Robert. But I may be wrong with this guess, as
>> I'm no native English speaker (what's probably quite obvious).
>>
>
> He posted in a PHP newsgroup, so my answer was in relation to PHP. If
> he wanted something else, he should have been more clear (or posted in a
> more appropriate newsgroup).
>
>
>>> But Pointed Head did indicate I was wrong on two accounts. And you
>>> haven't said anything to prove otherwise.
>>
>> Actually I've just answered the questions *you* had asked (even if the
>> were rhetorical). I cannot prove neither of you right or wrong. The
>> statement "PHP runs on the server; Javascript runs on the client." is
>> not true in every case, even if it's typically true for PHP development.
>> And I won't argue, if the name "Javascript" is correct in this context,
>> or if one should use "ECMAScript" or point out that it's called
>> "JScript" on IE.
>>
>
> Nope. The question was real. How many browsers can run PHP code?
*can*? AISB: at least all that implement the NPAPI, assuming that a PHP
browser plugin *can* be (or already have been?) written.
> And
> how many web servers actually run Javascript (I'm not counting wanna-be
> developers who are running 50 hit/mo. sites out of their basement, where
> 49 of those hits are from the site owner).
See e.g. <http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/pl-js/all/all>.
w3techs's only counting the top 1,000,000 sites. So currently 250 of
the top million websites are running Javascript (assumably all of them
have far more than 50 hits/mo.). And please note the trend: in 9 months
the usage has doubled!
>>> IOW, he just opened his fat trap to hear himself talk, as usual.
>>
>> I can't acknowledge that statement. ISTM Thomas has quite some knowledge
>> about web development, and I have learned from him, as I have from you.
>>
>
> Not in this group he isn't. And not in several other groups, where he's
> also recognized as a troll.
>
>>> And, as usual, he's showing his ignorance (as are you).
>>
>> Would you have replied, if somebody had called you "Jerry Struggle",
>> "stoopid" and "O great one"?
>>
>
> I've been called worse. And by better people than you.
My apologies, as it seems I have not expressed myself properly. I
didn't mean to insult you in any way. This was merely meant as a
"translation" (sorry, I'm lacking the appropriate word) of your reply to
Thomas, which might have been appropriate as reply to a troll -- which
IMHO Thomas isn't -- but every reader should decide for himself.
And yes, I'm quite aware that there are better people than me. Thanks
for reminding me.
--
Christoph M. Becker
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]