Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 07/03/05 03:09

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:20:05 +0100, "Richard Cornford"
<Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> ...why do you keep referring to inanimate objects like
>> they're people?

>It is reasonable in context. Someone is operating that cache, out of
>choice.

....yeah the tiny microscopic oompa loompas are operating the
cache...sure kid, sure.

<snip - redundant pointlessness>

>Yes I was. You want to get caching working for you instead of against
>you. Date stamps in query strings will not do that.

Date stamping works perfect, kiddo, using screen width stamping as I'm
doing now may be "better" in design, however in actual function it's
mostly meaningless unless people are going to the site and constantly
resizing their browser. What you fail to comprehend is that just
because something can happen, doesn't mean that it will be LIKELY to
happen.

>> I mean, DO YOU know how HTTP headers work?

>And if I explained them to you could you tell if I was right, without
>reference to RFC 2616? I won't bother because I already know the answer
>to that.

Well apparently I know enough about them to know that the no-cache
cache control directive isn't recognized by most HTTP v1.0 caches.
And that cache control via time stamps is in NO WAY related to the
method I originally used. The time stamps I used were nothing more
than a string of unique characters tacked onto the end of the file
name to ensure that a fresh image would be loaded every time.

>> ...you fuckin idiot...scalable CSS...oh yeah, brilliant that:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/shapes2.html
>>
>> Gotta love those jagged edges!

>You don't think that well for someone who claims to have imagination.
>Try scaling down instead of up.

On a 1024x768 display the 30% screen width image IS SCALED DOWN, you
fuckin MORON! Yeesh, obviously you don't know fuck all about how
image resizing. Free cl00, browsers use a method called "nearest
neighbor pixel resizing", as opposed to more advanced methods like
"bicubic resizing" (for enlarging) and "bilinear resizing" (for
shrinking)...of course then you have even more advanced resizing
methodologies such as "Lanczos resizing". In any event though
"nearest neighbor pixel resizing" isn't going to get you anything but
shit whether you're scaling up or down.

>> Yeesh, do you even KNOW what this fuckin thread is about?

>So far it has been about a series of poor implementations of a bad idea.

Yeah only because dumbass that you are you think it's simply a matter
of needing to scale down... *rolls eyes* ...way to like, not read,
Kiddo!

>So you are saying that you had a perfectly effective solution (that we
>both know was really no such thing) and for no reason what so ever you
>changed it for an alternative that you assert has no advantages, and
>even some disadvantages? Who are you trying to kid? Your arrogance might
>prevent you form admitting it in public but you have adopted that change
>because when I spelled it out to you in sufficiently simple terms that
>you could actually understand you had no choice but see that I have been
>right all along.

....you don't get it, do ya kid? This isn't about...it's about beta
testing. Now are you gonna tell me that you shell out 700+ line posts
for EVERY person who comes along with some new idea or concept?
No...of course not. The only reason you do it with me is because I
attack you, it makes you upset, makes you angry, makes you want more
than anything to try and "prove me wrong". Essentially I push you
into an extremely overcritical analysis that 10 to 1 says you never
even use for your own work and out of it I glean lil tidbits of
knowledge that I can use to try and perfect the design. You are my
beta tester, Cupcake...know yer role! `, D

....of course, I do have to be a bit discerning. After all, some of
what you've said has been true, however much of what you've said falls
into the realm of "poor programming practice"...like yer deal with
using eval().

Part of how I test your reliability is to purposefully say things
which are misleading or out and out wrong to see how you'll react to
them. In a lot of cases, what you're giving me is NOT your true
knowledge but what you picked up from "on the spot research"...like
your misunderstanding in regards to browser resizing.

>You think you can teach me anything about programming? Nothing in
>javascript needs to be a global variable.

Poor programming practice.

>It may e technobabble to you, it is the language of the specification
>for javascript.

Confucius say: "Man who does not know who to spell something, not man
to be trusting as reliable source."

It's JavaScript, kiddo, not javascript.

>> Are you a lawyer or a programmer?

>Am I ginning instructions to a human or a computer? Try writing "tack
>the current time on the end of the file name" in your javascript source
>and see how far that gets you.

Okay...

Function tack-the-current-time-on-the-end-of-the-file-name()
{
filename = filename + starttime;
}

*shrugs*

>> Well I hate to break it to ya, Cupcake, but code isn't that
>> black and white.

>Tell that to the computer, they see it as binary digits, which is about
>as black and white as things get.

....actually most computers employ trinary operators in quite a number
of hardware applications and pit depth modulation technology is going
to HUGELY impact CD/DVD storage capacities...so the bottom line is
that...you're wrong. ^_^

>> but when you're dealing with millions of them, well that
>> certainly introduces a bit of variability.

>No it doesn't. Computers use relentless mechanical logic in a completely
>deterministic way. Variability is only in the mind of the observer, and
>more so in the mind of the ill-informed observer.

Even if it were true that they only use 0s and 1s you're forgetting
that these systems are constructed out of natural materials and as
such can fail, break down, wear out, etc, etc. And they can also be
affected by a number of other stimuli from static electricity to dust
buildup. All these factors make that "relentless mechanical
logic"...about as reliable as a human in most cases.

>> If your logic was correct we wouldn't have bug fixes,
>> we wouldn't have security holes, there would
>> be no viruses, no firmware updates, no patches, etc, etc, etc.

>Errors certainly are made, but who is going to be making the most
>errors? The programmer who knows precisely what each line they write
>will do, or the programmer who assumes they know but doesn't really?

The one who doesn't follow good programming practices...ie you.

Yes Kiddo, you can choose not to use the eval function if you
like...but don't come cryin to me later on when your code gets all
fucked up cause suddenly you can't remember what's an integer and
what's a string.

>> I think you're confusing processing power and memory with
>> hard drive space, Kiddo.

>Do your really think I would?

Well given that you think computers are solely based on binary
operands...yes actually.

>In your implementation that is true. I, on the other hand, would store
>each distinct image size to disk as it was first requested/created and
>then serve subsequent requests for the same image from the disk,
>eliminating the need for the server to flog its guts out re-creating an
>essentially identical image.

....which would just be fucking stupid because yer gonna burn through
hard drives like most people go through cheeseburgers at McDonalds.
Doing it my way relies heavily on the processor and the systems memory
and doesn't require anything to be read from the hard drive...what
you're proposing is just...stupid. But then, you seem to have an
extremely poor understanding of hardware so I guess it makes sense.

>>>Or concatenation, depending on the type of the operands.

>> eval(logot+logoc)
>>
>> Hrmmm...nope, I don't see any dollar signs,

>Why would you be expecting to see dollar signs, or attributing meaning
>to them?

Because I use good programming practices. You don't, which is why
you're a bad programmer.

>Right, so you're "pretty sure" that in javascript the absence of any
>dollar signs means integers?

It does if I wrote the code...or anyone whose a competent programmer
who uses good programming practices.

>You are saying that the expression:-
>
>eval(logot+logoc)
>
>- adds two numbers and then type-converts the result into a string?

eval doesn't do that, no. That's not what I said at all. Using eval
is simply good programming practice so that you can more easily keep
track of what's an integer and what's not.

>When someone claims expertise in javascript, as you have,

I've NEVER claimed to be an expert in JavaScript, Kiddo...ever. The
only area I would consider myself to be an "expert" in is with digital
media conversion, compression, editing and encoding methodology.

>I wrote that a real expert at javascript knows the implications of the
>AdditiveExpression and the behaviour of the eval function. And as a
>result they would _never_ write that expression.

A "real expert at JavaScript" might not, but a "real programmer"
would.

>> Well last I checked I was the one with the only functioning perfect
>> liquid website, so yeah, I guess that does make the expert until
>> someone comes along and outmatches my design...boy we might be waitin
>> a while though, huh kiddo?

>That is certainly true. But expertise in the creation of what you
>(alone) term a "functioning prefect liquid website" is not in dispute,
>or in demand. The issue under dispute is the real level of expertise in
>web technologies that you posses. Javascript is being used as an
>illustrative example, and you are demonstrating an incomplete grasp of
>the basics and nothing that even comes close to expertise.

Well it's a good thing I never claimed to be an expert, huh kiddo?
Bottom line is what I made works, it works well and you've been
completely unsuccessful at actually trying to find actual problems
with it so now you're trying to attack my programming skill in
desperation...which is just fucking stupid. If there was REALLY
something wrong with my code you could easily bring it up, post
precise portions of it and then "expertly" correct them...you can't
though. At this point all you can do is nitpick about shit like using
eval, which is nothing more than programming style, it has no direct
meaning whatsoever on the actual function of the script.

>You are forgetting I know what happens without trying it.

Is this like how you know what happens to images that are scaled down
in browsers? *snicker*

Really kiddo, the only one around here whose claimed to be an "expert"
is you...and so far yer comin up a lil short in your foolish attempt
to posture up to that title.

>> You should have shut yourself the fuck up when you had the chance,
>> kiddo, cause now you've been pretty much exposed as a fuckin moron.
>> Hell I'm tempted to start xposting into some other programming froups
>> so EVERYBODY can get a laugh at you!

>comp.lang.javascript would be the obvious choice. There you can expect
>to find an informed opinion on the subject eval use, but you wouldn't
>dare.

Actually comp.programming would be a far better choice. The problem
with these specific froups like alt.php is that you can find no
shortage of php programmers...but you'll be hard pressed to find a
programmer...there is a difference, but I doubt you comprehend what it
is. ^_^

--

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

[Back to original message]