| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178947 is a reply to message #178946] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 01:28   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 8/26/2012 8:59 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes? And for just which browsers have those plugins been written? And
how many are in use?
We're not talking some theoretical possibility here. Please tell me how
I can run PHP on my browser TODAY. And which browser I can run it on.
Then let me know about how many other people in the world are doing that.
>> 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!
>
Yes, to quote:
"JavaScript is used by less than 0.1% of all the websites whose
server-side programming language we know." And, of course, they don't
know if the sites are actually USING server-side javascript. Only that
a plugin has been installed on the server.
But then that they have no real idea - it's just a guess. And even so,
the percentage is so low as to be immaterial. Let's see - 0.1% of 1M
sites - that means that *maybe* 1,000 have the plugin installed.
>>>> 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.
>
You've expressed yourself quite well. No translation necessary.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178949 is a reply to message #178945] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 04:47 |
mavigozler
Messages: 2
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012 02:52:33a
> 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? 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).
>
>>> 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.
1. Your reply to the original post was essentially correct: IN PRACTICE,
PHP is processed off the server and Javascript is processed at the client.
This is what the OP should learn and know and understand.
2. The replies to your posted reply are the usual pedantic bullshit by the
c.l.j. troll Pointed Ears. Yeah, at RARE times he can be helpful while
getting it right, but there are plenty of others who get it right virtually
all the time without the snide, prima donna act [it may not be an act, but a
hopeless, untreatable (psycho)pathology]. Yes, I can name at least one who
gets it right without the arrogance and snide remarks.
3. The OP has probably been scared off by the fight usually provoked or
instigated by this asshole Pointed Ears, whose social awkwardness is well
known to regular lurkers and posters. That's a shame, since your reply to
him was entirely helpful compared to the angels-on-the-head-of-pin
discussion that followed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178952 is a reply to message #178949] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 09:17 |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <XnsA0BC4F40FA327mavi(at)88(dot)198(dot)244(dot)100>,
mavigozler <mavigozler(at)turkiye(dot)gov(dot)invalid> wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012 02:52:33a
>> I've been called worse. And by better people than you.
>
> 1. Your reply to the original post was essentially correct: IN PRACTICE,
> PHP is processed off the server and Javascript is processed at the client.
> This is what the OP should learn and know and understand.
>
> 2. The replies to your posted reply are the usual pedantic bullshit by the
> c.l.j. troll Pointed Ears. Yeah, at RARE times he can be helpful while
> getting it right, but there are plenty of others who get it right virtually
> all the time without the snide, prima donna act [it may not be an act, but a
> hopeless, untreatable (psycho)pathology]. Yes, I can name at least one who
> gets it right without the arrogance and snide remarks.
>
> 3. The OP has probably been scared off by the fight usually provoked or
> instigated by this asshole Pointed Ears, whose social awkwardness is well
> known to regular lurkers and posters. That's a shame, since your reply to
> him was entirely helpful compared to the angels-on-the-head-of-pin
> discussion that followed.
Good summary. And a correct assessment of PointyHead, to whom the best
thing to say under any circumstance is "Fuck off".
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178953 is a reply to message #178952] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 11:32 |
mavigozler
Messages: 2
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Tim Streater <timstreater(at)greenbee(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012 12:17:10p
> In article <XnsA0BC4F40FA327mavi(at)88(dot)198(dot)244(dot)100>,
> mavigozler <mavigozler(at)turkiye(dot)gov(dot)invalid> wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012
>> 02:52:33a
>
>>> I've been called worse. And by better people than you.
>>
>> 1. Your reply to the original post was essentially correct: IN
>> PRACTICE, PHP is processed off the server and Javascript is processed
>> at the client. This is what the OP should learn and know and
>> understand.
>>
>> 2. The replies to your posted reply are the usual pedantic bullshit by
>> the c.l.j. troll Pointed Ears. Yeah, at RARE times he can be helpful
>> while getting it right, but there are plenty of others who get it right
>> virtually all the time without the snide, prima donna act [it may not
>> be an act, but a hopeless, untreatable (psycho)pathology]. Yes, I can
>> name at least one who gets it right without the arrogance and snide
>> remarks.
>>
>> 3. The OP has probably been scared off by the fight usually provoked or
>> instigated by this asshole Pointed Ears, whose social awkwardness is
>> well known to regular lurkers and posters. That's a shame, since your
>> reply to him was entirely helpful compared to the
>> angels-on-the-head-of-pin discussion that followed.
>
> Good summary. And a correct assessment of PointyHead, to whom the best
> thing to say under any circumstance is "Fuck off".
I do regret the name-calling---the use of the word "asshole"---and I wish to
apologize. It is unhelpful, and these are not the political newsgroups
where than kind of language is rife.
I don't want to take away from the guy: he's an academic who clearly looks
into "why" and not just into "how," and the discipline is fortunate to have
knowledgable individuals of his stature willing to lead the ranks. I am
just questioning his teaching style: berating the students does not
engender their desire to learn.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178954 is a reply to message #178953] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 11:49 |
Tim Streater
Messages: 328
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <XnsA0BC93F368FB9mavi(at)88(dot)198(dot)244(dot)100>,
mavigozler <mavigozler(at)turkiye(dot)gov(dot)invalid> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater(at)greenbee(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012 12:17:10p
>
>> In article <XnsA0BC4F40FA327mavi(at)88(dot)198(dot)244(dot)100>,
>> mavigozler <mavigozler(at)turkiye(dot)gov(dot)invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote on Mon 27 Aug 2012
>>> 02:52:33a
>>
>>>> I've been called worse. And by better people than you.
>>>
>>> 1. Your reply to the original post was essentially correct: IN
>>> PRACTICE, PHP is processed off the server and Javascript is processed
>>> at the client. This is what the OP should learn and know and
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> 2. The replies to your posted reply are the usual pedantic bullshit by
>>> the c.l.j. troll Pointed Ears. Yeah, at RARE times he can be helpful
>>> while getting it right, but there are plenty of others who get it right
>>> virtually all the time without the snide, prima donna act [it may not
>>> be an act, but a hopeless, untreatable (psycho)pathology]. Yes, I can
>>> name at least one who gets it right without the arrogance and snide
>>> remarks.
>>>
>>> 3. The OP has probably been scared off by the fight usually provoked or
>>> instigated by this asshole Pointed Ears, whose social awkwardness is
>>> well known to regular lurkers and posters. That's a shame, since your
>>> reply to him was entirely helpful compared to the
>>> angels-on-the-head-of-pin discussion that followed.
>>
>> Good summary. And a correct assessment of PointyHead, to whom the best
>> thing to say under any circumstance is "Fuck off".
>
> I do regret the name-calling---the use of the word "asshole"---and I wish to
> apologize. It is unhelpful, and these are not the political newsgroups
> where than kind of language is rife.
>
> I don't want to take away from the guy: he's an academic who clearly looks
> into "why" and not just into "how," and the discipline is fortunate to have
> knowledgable individuals of his stature willing to lead the ranks. I am
> just questioning his teaching style: berating the students does not
> engender their desire to learn.
Indeed. And which will elicit the manner of response I suggested.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178955 is a reply to message #178953] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 22:46 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:32:47 +0000, mavigozler wrote:
> I don't want to take away from the guy: he's an academic who clearly
> looks into "why" and not just into "how," and the discipline is
> fortunate to have knowledgable individuals of his stature willing to
> lead the ranks. I am just questioning his teaching style: berating the
> students does not engender their desire to learn.
If he is genuinely an academic, he's the perfect embodiment of the saying
"those that can do, those that can't teach".
His sole "contribution" to www technology newsgroups, for as long as I've
been able to discern, is to criticise wherever possible the solutions
that other people post to anyone's questions.
He has never to my knowledge actually suggested code or markup himself in
response to a problem, even when challenged to offer a better solution in
response to his not uncommon posts along the lines of "your solution is
flawed", his only ability seems to be to criticise the solutions posted
by others.
I was initially taken in by his apparent knowledge, but quickly came to
realise that he's just an ignorant, arrogant and pompous old twat with
too much time on his hands.
Jerry S can be pompous too, but at least he knows what the fuck he's
talking about, and if he's arrogant, well I figure he's earned the right
to be.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178956 is a reply to message #178955] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 22:51 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Denis McMahon wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:32:47 +0000, mavigozler wrote:
>
>> I don't want to take away from the guy: he's an academic who clearly
>> looks into "why" and not just into "how," and the discipline is
>> fortunate to have knowledgable individuals of his stature willing to
>> lead the ranks. I am just questioning his teaching style: berating the
>> students does not engender their desire to learn.
>
> If he is genuinely an academic, he's the perfect embodiment of the saying
> "those that can do, those that can't teach".
>
> His sole "contribution" to www technology newsgroups, for as long as I've
> been able to discern, is to criticise wherever possible the solutions
> that other people post to anyone's questions.
>
> He has never to my knowledge actually suggested code or markup himself in
> response to a problem, even when challenged to offer a better solution in
> response to his not uncommon posts along the lines of "your solution is
> flawed", his only ability seems to be to criticise the solutions posted
> by others.
>
WAre we talking about Jerry here?
> I was initially taken in by his apparent knowledge, but quickly came to
> realise that he's just an ignorant, arrogant and pompous old twat with
> too much time on his hands.
>
Yup: That has to be Jerry.
> Jerry S can be pompous too, but at least he knows what the fuck he's
> talking about,
Er no, mostly he doesn't.
and if he's arrogant, well I figure he's earned the right
> to be.
>
Nope. You will not find one single line of code posted by Jerry to a
certainty in the two years before I finally killed filed the asshole.
The salient difference is that Thomasis usually right, .
Neither are especially helpful, but Thomas is at least amusing in his
pedantry.
> Rgds
>
> Denis McMahon
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178957 is a reply to message #178956] |
Tue, 28 August 2012 01:00 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 8/27/2012 6:51 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Denis McMahon wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:32:47 +0000, mavigozler wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want to take away from the guy: he's an academic who clearly
>>> looks into "why" and not just into "how," and the discipline is
>>> fortunate to have knowledgable individuals of his stature willing to
>>> lead the ranks. I am just questioning his teaching style: berating the
>>> students does not engender their desire to learn.
>>
>> If he is genuinely an academic, he's the perfect embodiment of the
>> saying "those that can do, those that can't teach".
>>
>> His sole "contribution" to www technology newsgroups, for as long as
>> I've been able to discern, is to criticise wherever possible the
>> solutions that other people post to anyone's questions.
>>
>> He has never to my knowledge actually suggested code or markup himself
>> in response to a problem, even when challenged to offer a better
>> solution in response to his not uncommon posts along the lines of
>> "your solution is flawed", his only ability seems to be to criticise
>> the solutions posted by others.
>>
>
> WAre we talking about Jerry here?
>
>> I was initially taken in by his apparent knowledge, but quickly came
>> to realise that he's just an ignorant, arrogant and pompous old twat
>> with too much time on his hands.
>>
>
> Yup: That has to be Jerry.
>
>> Jerry S can be pompous too, but at least he knows what the fuck he's
>> talking about,
>
> Er no, mostly he doesn't.
>
> and if he's arrogant, well I figure he's earned the right
>> to be.
>>
>
> Nope. You will not find one single line of code posted by Jerry to a
> certainty in the two years before I finally killed filed the asshole.
>
Which just proves you can't read. I've posted a lot of code, and the
archives prove that.
> The salient difference is that Thomasis usually right, .
>
> Neither are especially helpful, but Thomas is at least amusing in his
> pedantry.
>
>
>
>> Rgds
>>
>> Denis McMahon
>
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]