Posted by Bitey on 07/25/05 11:47

^reaper^ wrote this gem. Seriously... :

> While sipping absinthe, Bitey heard a loud sucking noise coming from
> alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible Sanskrit in
> <news:pan.2005.07.23.03.02.52.448173@batcave.rafters>:
>
>> LOL! I kept reading your first three words as "in teh back way".
>
> That would work too. ^_~
>
>> Needless to say, it skidded me to a halt .. but why do you want to avoid js?
>
> Js is evul. Evul, eye say!!!1!
>
> Seriously though, my avoidance of js is in part due teh addition of
> xbrowser compat issues. 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. 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. Additionally, even if you're not aiming for
> xbrowser compat or complex ops, etc., some of your visitors will have
> scripting disabled altogether. Thus, if teh majority of your site content,
> navigation, etc, is dependent upon scripting, your site has become useless
> to those individuals. And finally, I consider js to be a toy lang, and
> therefore lending little, if any value to teh final result.
>
> As with anything, there are of course, exceptions such as form validation,
> etc. Anything outside of that is primarily bells and whistles to spice up a
> site (which was ECMAScript purpose in teh first place), and therefore,
> pretty much useless. At least from teh functionality pov. If you require
> something more complex (e.g., calculators, spreadsheets, interactive single
> user games, etc), there's always Java applets, though even those have their
> limitations. No matter. In teh end it is still dependent upon your target
> audience. What is your reach? What are you attempting to achieve, etc? Most
> tech savvy folk are using teh latest state of teh art equip, so computes
> will not be a issue for them. Teh general public, however tends to be
> somewhat behind teh curve. That, and there are plenty peeps who are
> squeamish about browser scripting due to buggy scripts, sploits, etc., so
> they simply disable it to avoid teh headaches. For these reasons, I tend
> towards teh minimalist approach when it comes to using js.

...but, but.. MY BAT BIRDIES!! lmao
Btw, I got them to work on the Port5 site -and- got the page to validate.
All it took was a "\". Validator kept on saying that </layer> (for ex.)
was not allowed so I did a little reading and found out I could do this
<\/layer> and it would work. The batty.js.html file works on the
Charter.net site but Port5 won't allow it so I had to put the js code in
the body - but that's cool. Just that anyone with js turned OFF won't be
able to see my lovely little bat birdies. <smile> I read like a twelve
year old retard, don't I? *lol*

--
A Bitey Copyleft Production ;p~~~
http://Biteybits.port5.com

[Back to original message]