Posted by Ben C on 04/18/07 07:09

On 2007-04-17, Jon Slaughter <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnf2ahsu.hi7.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>> On 2007-04-17, Jon Slaughter <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Well, My issue is not learning it so much but I guess I get pissed when I
>>> run into trouble and they do it in such a contorted way. Languages are
>>> suppose to be about making things easier and not more difficult.
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use JS as atleast it is a programming
>>> language. But ofcourse then it limits my user base. Why not just use a
>>> lite
>>> version of JS that removes all the main issues with it that people don't
>>> like instead of comming up with an entirely new way(and then another and
>>> another).
>>
>> One of the issues with it people might not like is the very fact that it
>> is a programming language. I might not want to allow just any old
>> program written by anyone to run on my computer. But I mind less reading
>> their HTML documents or letting them make suggestions about how they
>> should be laid out in stylesheets.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language
>
> Its not a programming language. Its not a functional language. Its an
> imperative language.

In normal usage, "functional" and "imperative" are both subclasses of
programming languages. Very few programming languages are purely one or
the other. Scheme is close to purely functional, Logo is close to purely
imperative at the other end of the scale. JavaScript, like most
programming languages, has elements of both and supports the use of
either imperative or functional programming styles. It has anonymous
functions and functions are first class objects which makes a highly
functional programming style possible. JavaScript is certainly a
programming language.

[...]
>> It's only really IE that causes all those problems. The rest are largely
>> consistent on a large subset of the CSS 2.1 spec.
>
> Why not just ban IE then? If every web developer got together and forced
> everyone not to use IE then people would have no choice. MS would be forced
> to actually do something about it. I think the issue is simply that the
> average user is not aware of just how many problems IE cause.

Indeed. Read carefully the advice of Mr Korpela and others about how to
make a website that is always accessible even if CSS and JS are turned
off altogether. That way IE users should still see something, be able to
read it, and follow the links. If they miss out on all the eye candy too
bad, they'll just have to get a standards-conforming browser.

[Back to original message]