Posted by K.J.Williams on 04/04/07 17:43

See my interjections to your comments below..

On Apr 4, 1:42 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
wrote:
> K.J.Williams wrote:
> > I needed the CSS book becuase I dont know how to use CSS in HTML ,
> > I know HTML but not the integration CSS which is now a standard among
> > many businesses
>
> If you've not been using CSS, then the chances are, you've not been using
> HTML properly either.

Thats true - I have learned to use HTML on my own and the limited book
choices that I was
given for learning HTML - I choose HTML for Dummies, and on line I
used some help from
several other sites on HTML. So I have used HTML effectively to my
uses but not to the
standard practice of using CSS. I have a program that I wrote in C
that automates the
script building of at least 314 html pages that I have that are in a
system I developed.
It works but I would like it to do *BETTER*. Theres always room for
doing better...in my book
(not the dummies book).

>
> > as for PHP , php in a nutshell was choosen as reference, and the
> > other book published by wrox is to teach me.
>
> I agree that it's usually a good idea to have several books on a
> programming language to be able to learn it. PHP is the exception though.
>
> Firstly, PHP changes so often -- normally in backwards compatible ways,
> true, but I don't think I've ever used a language where new features and
> new functions are being added on such a frequent basis. Books become
> obsolete very quickly. If you take a look at these two books you've got,
> I'd bet that at least one of them teaches you the old PHP4 method for
> object-oriented programming. Although that still works, PHP5 objects are
> vastly more powerful.
>
> > HTML is a pseudo-programming langauge
>
> HTML is not a programming language at all -- it's a data format, much like
> JPEG or MP3 is.

I disagree.

HTML is an interpreted langauge that has a simple method of handling
wrong syntax, if the
web browser's interpreter parses a tag it doesnt recognize it ignores
it or if it does
recognize something that is like one of its tags but its incorrect
syntax it produces
undefined behavior. Otherwise, correct syntax will produce a result
from the interpreter.

>
> > ditto for Javascript.

My argument stands the same -- more or less for Javascript, its not
compiled therefore its
interpreted.

In my point of view - Javascript and HTML are programming langauges
from the stand point
they are interpreted - like Commodore's line numbered BASIC

>
> Javascript is a fully featured programming object-oriented language. And
> (browser compatibility problems aside) is actually rather pleasant to work
> with. It's a bit like C or C++ in syntax, but without the need to worry
> about pointers and memory locations; it has a good object orientation
> model, but isn't militant about making you use it like Java is.
>
> > If and when Sunsoft develops a compiler that produce a independent
> > machine code program from JAVA code, I might reconsider that langauge -
> > that langauge is junk.
>
> Consider it this way: a compiled C program will only run on the platform
> it was compiled for. Say, for example, that you have a C program compiled
> for Linux on the DEC Alpha processor. If you want to run it, you need to
> buy a DEC Alpha processor -- they don't come cheap.
>
> A compiled Java program will also only run on the platform that it was
> compiled for. That platform is normally the Java virtual machine. So if
> you want to run the program, then you need to buy a Java virtual machine.
> Fortunately, they're free!

yeah but the designer of Java intended the langauge to be portable to
any machine that supports it and run it from a JVM, but its running
from a
second compiled form called byte code which depends on the JVM to run
it.

>
> Whatsmore, there *is* a true compiler for Java -- it's part of the GCC
> suite. Seehttp://gcc.gnu.org/java/.

Theres none for Windows XP, and secondly the compiler by gcc is has
bugs that
make certain features of Java not possible, some *.awt's are
icompatible

>
> Java has many drawbacks, but device-independence is normally quoted as one
> of its best features!
>
> > But the most useful of all the programming langauges is assembly
>
> Nonsense. A programming language is only as useful as what people can do
> with it. Given a week, and experienced, say, C programmer can do a lot
> more in C than an experienced assembly programmer can do in assembly.
>
> Sure, it's fast, and at certain times it's worth the programmer time to
> drop down into assembly and eek a bit of extra speed out of the program.
> But those situations are very rare; unless you're working on compression,
> encryption, high-end 3D graphics or kernel development, you're unlikely to
> encounter such a situation.
>

for todays applications - it assembly is good for optimization of
certain
parts of code or developing hardware drivers.

> > And that basically proves that there can be no such thing as copyright
> > protection scheme or anything to prevent software duplication.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
>
> Summary: TC processors can be designed so that they refuse to run an
> operating system unless it has been digitally signed. If you modify your
> operating system, the signature will break, and you'll be unable to run
> it; so for all intents and purposes, the OS cannot be modified. The TC
> operating system similarly refuses to run a program unless it has been
> signed; so for all intents and purposes, no programs can be modified.

No scheme is fool proof for any long term plan

>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
> Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
>
> * = I'm getting there!

[Back to original message]