|
|
Posted by Michael Winter on 10/24/50 11:22
On 25/07/2005 07:11, ^reaper^ wrote:
Apologies for the delay. I never usually leave replies this late.
[snip]
> Even though Michael has some valid pts wrt feature detection (which
> is certainly superior to browser detection), you're still req to
> include addtional steps (e.g. if-feature det-then) if you're aiming
> for xbrowser compat. And this, in and of itself xlates to needing
> more than just a cursory knowledge of teh lang.
Yes, but should you really expect much else? You wouldn't hire someone
to write an application if they only had cursory knowledge of C++, would
you?
Browser scripting and ECMAScript have long been portrayed as simple
tasks that (almost) anyone can do. In some cases, that may be true.
> That is, if you do not want to blindly use feature det which could
> result in overuse thereby xlating to code bloat and unnecessary
> compute overhead. Furthermore, if you're using it to generate a
> content rich site, perform complex operations, etc. Teh result can be
> a compute hog.
Code size can certainly be a problem as it must require extra code to
perform the tests. However, code speed isn't really an issue. What's
more, the flexibility that is present in ECMAScript can allow tests to
be performed once, and only once, and then skipped in subsequent runs.
Unsurprisingly, this has been discussed on comp.lang.javascript before.
Search the Google Groups archives for the phrase, "Russian doll". There
are bound to be other threads, but I know that will lead to some
detailed discussions.
> Additionally, even if you're not aiming for xbrowser compat or
> complex ops, etc., some of your visitors will have scripting disabled
> altogether.
Yes, and that is why some form of fallback should be planned, usually
involving support from the server.
> Thus, if teh majority of your site content, navigation, etc, is
> dependent upon scripting, your site has become useless to those
> individuals.
Relying on client-side scripting is almost always a bad idea. There are
always some exceptions, though.
> And finally, I consider js to be a toy lang, and therefore lending
> little, if any value to teh final result.
I used to think that, too. It isn't an opinion that I hold now, though.
The language itself is very powerful. What lets it down is usually the
restricted environment in which it operates.
[snip]
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|