ObfusCo
>
The List
>
jscript
Dynamic Web Blog
Ajax de rigueur:
- 63)
An attempt to
demystify
Atlas, which is apparently
Microsoft's AJAX,
er, I mean DHTML.
- 62)
Screw client-side JavaScript,
do
everything on the server!
- 61)
Getting
concrete
about Ajax development, in this case with TIBCO's 'General Interface'.
- 60)
Check out
59)
The world of AJAX libraries is heating up, with
Yahoo!
getting in on the action. I'm glad; I would not find
writing all that stuff fun, myself, but using it would
be OK.
- 58)
Adobe's
Spry
might be cool.
- 57)
Nice demo!
- 56)
Another Web 2.0 approach, this time
in Scheme.
- 55)
Continuation-style programming has come home to roost; now available in
client-side
javascript.
- 54)
Yup, Google has
released
some AJAX stuff for Java developers - it is apparently cool
in that you write Java code which then gets run through some
Google tools to spit out the AJAXy stuff for your browser
(Although it is unclear to me exactly what the deal is
with the license it is under - I ain't no lawyer.)
Some
tutorial
articles are around.
- 53)
Please don't do
this.
Thanks.
- 52)
Check out a
video
about django, which is the Python alternative
to Ruby on Rails, it would seem.
- 51)
You got your
closures
in my AJAX. The whole thing just makes me think that
while JavaScript and Perl are cool because they easily allow
for so many different ways to tackle problems, it is frustrating
for somebody who just wants to get work done to have to spend
hours reading up on which OO library hack they should
be using. One wastes so much time just getting the language
you want in place, rather than having some language that
is more restrictive and narrow so the rubber meets
the road sooner. If you catch my rutabaga.
- 50)
Check up on your
mutual
exclustion.
- 49)
OpenLazlo supports both
Flash and DHTML now.
- 48)
Microsoft's Atlas stuff sounds nifty, and in theory
it is relatively
agnostic and not tied at the hip to lots of MS-specific
systems.
- 47)
Finally, somebody who has the ounce of sense
required to see
the middle ground.
- 46)
Yahoo! has released
their
shiznit to the public.
- 45)
For those of you venturing forth into AJAX,
beware
there be dragons, potentially.
- 44)
In the ever on-going saga of "Just How the Hell
Do We Do Inheritance in JavaScript Anyway?", it is
worth reading what
Harry
has to say, along with the commentary. Check out
even
yet another style, too. It makes me wonder why
everybody is bending over backwards to do all this?
Why do we have to force JavaScript to be like Java?
What is wrong with getting into the JS mindset and
doing things without weird language hacks? I'd wager
that either everybody is too lame to learn how to do
JS right, or that prototype based JS is just a fundamentally
broken language design. I dunno which it is.
- 43)
Another Ajax system is
echo2.
- 42)
IBM has some tutorials on
calling SOAP from Ajax
[1]
[2].
Personally, I think SOAP is sorta XML from Hell, but
that doesn't mean you can't
get
things done with it.
- 41)
The Ajaxian
site has some useful
security
talk, and a myriad of other great things.
- 40)
SACK
purports to be a simple system.
- 39)
Another supposed stud-muffin is
phAtJAX,
although their only fully-featured server examples use PHP, yuck.
- 38)
At a pretty low leve, there's
JSON-RPC-Java
to let your client JavaScript call out to server-side Java.
- 37)
ZK
has a slightly different take, currntly using XUL.
- 36)
A take on
supporting
history in AJAX, also described
in
an O'Reilly article.
- 35)
Even
more ways
to shove AJAX up your... orifice. A little
dose
of warning and common sense doesn't hurt,
and generated
some
ideas about handling network suck.
- 34)
Ruby on Rails
has kicked off some
Pythonic
versions which can dove-tail with AJAX.
Note that there's a plug for
Web Stack
in an attemp to address all the wheel reinvention going on.
- 33)
Myghty
is a toolkit for getting AJAX working with Python.
- 32)
Another offering is
SAJAX
which purports to easily hook you up to whatever back-end
language you want. Unfortunately, it kinda looks like it
requires PHP? I'm pretty sure I've been told to stay the
hell away from PHP, if only for security reasons.
- 31)
Misc
reference
material.
- 30)
A fun
toolkit for Ajax.
- 29)
Check out
haXe for generating
JavaScript and other Web-oriented languages.
- 28)
Everybody wants a version of getElementsByClassName().
So after some reading, here are what seem to be interesting refs:
Glazblog 1,
Glazblog 2,
getElementsBySelector(),
and maybe something about
Behaviour.
- 27)
Another AJAX library:
Surebert.
- 26)
On doing
closures
right in JavaScript.
- 25)
A JavaScript
Standard
Template Library (also parts
2
and
3).
- 24)
Example snippet of
retro
code for old browsers.
- 23)
Yet another Ajax
intro, this time influenced by Rails.
- 22)
Doing transparency
in a browser. another
take.
- 21)
Doing graphics
in JavaScript/Ajax. Seems like one should just port some kind
of already existing, production-quality 2D system to a Div array,
instead of reinventing the entire stack of poo?
- 20)
Fun with
animations
.
- 19)
An LtU hit talking about
using CSS
to pump-up JavaScript, with some links to interesting
work.
- 18)
This is killing me. How can I use a variable as the pattern
in a regexp? I don't want to use a literal, I want to use
the contents of a string variable, ya know? Gah!
- 17)
Yikes.
Convert
your reams of Lisp browser scripts into JavaScript! Continuing with
the theme, check out
The Little
JavaScripter.
- 16)
A somewhat
anti
JavaScript rant, food for thought.
- 15)
Blah, blah, blah,
Ajax,
blah, blah, blah.
- 14)
A
tutorial
care of Peter-Paul Koch.
- 13)
If you thought you might want
to do some interactive JavaScript,
you
might want to think again.
"If you don't really understand the difference between addEventListener and
attachEvent, stick to the traditional event registration model:
x[i].onmouseover = doSomething;
Don't experiment with methods you don't understand. You'll do yourself a
favour in the long run." (Some possible fixes are the
Prototype or
AddEvent Manager
libraries.
- 12)
Most of the stuff from webreference.com
on JavaScript is confusing, but the
article
on inheritance is still a possibly useful read, with things
that are obvious yet worth saying like the fact that using
prototypes is faster than using constructors.
- 11)
On performance:
- 10)
Okay, I gotta like
a
page that mentions big-O notation!
- 9)
Some maybe old school
notes
on JS performance and style.
- 8)
10 possibly useful
performance
tips.
- 7)
Another
perf
document, noting that << isn't so hot.
- 6)
An
educational
comparison between Perl & JavaScript, handy
for people like moi who know Perl first.
- 5)
The fact that it is so whacky flexible when it
comes to inheritance is pretty cool, but it also
means that trying to learn how to impelment it the
first time around is kinda cognitive overload. Pick
any given Google hit for javacript + inhertiance,
and its code will look pretty different from anothers.
Heck, that's true just of how to set up objects at
all, never mind doing inheritance.
- 4)
Ah. Maybe
Venkman
will help make JavaScript development a little less hellacious.
(There's still the fact that it isn't going to check all the code
until I execute it... Yes, I just have a fundamental dislike
of purely runtime languages.) Also, it is vaguely funny to have Venkman
on because you see how pretty all web pages have broken
JavaScript in them!
- 3)
[Update: OK, I think the deal is that
you cannot call document.write() while
in the <head> section, since
this test doesn't
generate errors.]
I'm attempting to learn JavaScript, and am
banging my head against the wall. When I use
document.write(), which I thought
was something everybody used all the time in
their code, I get errors. Here's my proof,
which results in: Error: runC is not defined.
Source File: http://www.obfusco.com/js-broken.html.
Line: 11. (Seen in the browser's JavaScript
log.) This is with Firefox 1.0.6 running
on an Ubuntu Linux power-pc (G4) machine. No,
I have not yet had the chance to try it with
e.g.: MSIE. Is this something everybody already knows about?
I can't find anything helpful via Google because
the search terms are too prevalent. Am
I just doing something horribly blatently wrong
and I just can't see the obvious?
- 2)
Another way in which I hate JavaScript (at
least in Firefox) is that you have to run the
code to find any errors - there is no compilation
step, and there is no interactive interpreter.
(Well, maybe there is, like Rhino or something?)
Anyway, trying to develop in the browser means
you end up with a language that has all the drawbacks
of a scripting language with almost none of the benefits,
you know? (Like early XSLT was all the trouble of functional
programming, without the gain, because it didn't
have lambdas.)
- 1)
JavaScript in Firefox is killing me because the
only error it seems to know is "XYZ is not defined"
so it doesn't actually help you figure out why
the interpreter decided XYZ wasn't defined. I figured
out that I shouldn't use document.write()
in the head section of the page (next bullet down), OK.
But now I'm not doing that, but I'm getting a new "XYZ is not
defined" error from other code that looks perfectly
fine. Maybe IE has better, or at least different,
errors? This is kinda killing me. I cannot fathom
how anybody has ever written anything remotely
serious for the web. How can Ajax possibly be a
powerful and un-hateful development idea? Where are
the IDEs? Where are the interactive debuggers?
Where are the libraries that make all browsers
behave the same for your code?