Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 07/03/05 00:33

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:42:25 GMT, Oli Filth <catch@olifilth.co.uk>
wrote:

>>>If my browser didn't cache that image (and it didn't) then who did,

>> ...and why are you blathering on about HTTP headers when in that other
>> post you were yammering on about how you hated my date stamp
>> method...I mean, DO YOU know how HTTP headers work?

>What's the relationship between date-stamping a filename and HTTP headers?

With HTTP headers you can set it not to cache anything, like nyah:

Cache-Control: no-cache

Which is essentially the same as date/time stamping individual file
names...except that it gives you more control, with cache control it's
everything in the page, all or nothing.

>>>And there I was expecting you to use the HTTP headers to influence
>>>caching behaviour, like anyone who knows what they are doing. But then
>>>you don't do you? So it is a javascript hack for you.

>> A JavaScript hack, eh? *snicker* Actually doing what I did with
>> JavaScript is not much different from modifying HTTP headers except
>> you have more control in that you can precisely cache individual
>> elements. With HTTP headers it's pretty much all or nothing.

>Hmm, sounds like someone doesn't know how to use HTTP headers.

Are you saying you can get precision control over individual file
caching using HTTP headers?

>> eval(logot+logoc)
>>
>> Hrmmm...nope, I don't see any dollar signs, kiddo, pretty sure that
>> means they're INTEGERS...say it with me INTEGERS.

>What do dollar signs have to do with anything?

Well normally one would use a dollar sign to differentiate between a
string and an integer. I suppose maybe JavaScript might not care if
you didn't use a dollar sign to signify a string, however I consider
it good programming practice to do it anyway regardless.

>> Well of course it is you fuckin doorknob there's only one variable in
>> their example. I mean if I type out eval(value); it's not gonna do
>> anything. But if I throw in some more variables and a few more
>> operands hey we can really start some shit!
>> eval(you+are*a-fucking/idiot);
>>
>> There ya go, how do ya like that?

>That's still one argument to the eval() function!!!!!

....after it's done doing whatever calculations are contained within
it, yes.

>> Try it without the eval, stupid, see what happens. Oh hey, it fucks
>> the whole site, fancy that!

>Tried it, and it worked fine.
>
>If you want a simple example:
>
> var gimp = 15;
> var bum = 20;
> document.write(gimp + ' does not equal ' + bum);

*tests the idiocy*

Great, it works...although it makes no difference as far as speed so
obviously it's nothing more than a programming style...which is why
I'm not going to do it.

I guess JavaScript is like IE in a lot of ways, you can program like
shit and it's REAL forgiving. Most of us who engage in good
programming practices would like a better distinction between our
integers and our strings though.

>> Yeesh, if you weren't such a fuckin MORON you'd be able to see that
>> quite plainly simply by noticing the + "px"; tacked onto the end of
>> the thing, ya fuckin doorknob!
>>
>> Obviously to anyone who isn't STUPID I'm using eval to perform math on
>> integers that are going to be read as a string once it's finished
>> calculating them.

>Umm, in Javascript you can concatenate an integer with a string, no
>problem (see the example above). And if you're worried about evaluation
>order, well that's what brackets are for.

Yeah well you just go on ahead and do that, kiddo. Hell you can
engage in all the piss poor programming practices you like...yeesh,
it's people like you who program in C++ and it winds up only working
in Windows. *rolls eyes*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Back to original message]