Re: Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #13,611 by pwhysall 10/16/01 2:48:40 PM Reply	Re: Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's My SCGUI project is avialable for all to download and play with (and add to). Where is your side's? I see nothing but talk. For all? Erm, did MS port VB to Linux when I wasn't looking or something? That is more points for mine: 1. Open standard 2. Free demo with source code 3. One protocol instead of three I'll give you (2) - even though I can't run the thing. You're bullshitting on (1), because SCGUI isn't a standard. Not even close. Just because you release a bit of code doesn't make it a standard. (3) is bollocks, and well you know it. You're using at least two "protocols" (sigh, programming languages aren't protocols, but WTFever) - SCGUI, and your transport protocol, TCP/IP. Really, you're using 3, because of the VB protocol you're making me use. Oops. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #13,613 by pwhysall 10/16/01 2:51:32 PM Reply	Forgot one. SCGUI runs over HTTP, right? Which is an actual, can't-get-better-than-the-real-thing protocol. That makes 4. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #13,709 by tablizer 10/16/01 11:38:32 PM Reply	sloppy counting >> TCP/IP. Really, you're using 3, because of the VB protocol you're making me use. Oops. << TCP/IP and/or HTTP are a given in both because some protocol needs to message the stuff back and forth. The VB is on the server side. Scott's solution will also have server-side languages, which I did not count. I also did not count the browser, which I assume that the developer will not have to diddle with under normal circumstances. Regardless, if you count properly, you still get x < x + 1 or x < x + 2 if Scott uses HTML. ________________ oop.ismad.com

Stopping the browser throbber - (admin) - (159) - Sept. 17, 2001, 12:16:58 PM EDT

"This is the page that never ends... - (Fearless Freep) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:15:04 PM EDT

Prescient - (kmself) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 07:43:32 PM EDT

Just have someone call - (imric) - Oct. 22, 2001, 08:03:14 PM EDT

Infinite content or just infinite wait? - (tseliot) - (139) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:29:38 PM EDT

Wrong angle :-) - (admin) - (138) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:55:16 PM EDT

Ahhhh. Circumventing another man's app by DESIGN. - (tseliot) - (137) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:11:12 PM EDT

Don't control the deployment that much. - (admin) - (136) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:17:30 PM EDT

Well, sure. - (tseliot) - (3) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:17:29 PM EDT

One connection per session regardless. - (admin) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:27:10 PM EDT

Feh. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Sept. 18, 2001, 06:21:14 PM EDT

ROFL - (admin) - Sept. 18, 2001, 11:02:17 PM EDT

Auto refresh? - (tablizer) - (131) - Oct. 3, 2001, 02:28:23 PM EDT

Re: Auto refresh? - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 3, 2001, 02:33:41 PM EDT

...which should be subject to user override - (kmself) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2001, 06:34:33 PM EDT

We are talking B-to-B or intranet, right? - (tablizer) - Oct. 5, 2001, 07:10:35 PM EDT

The application uses auto refresh now. - (admin) - (127) - Oct. 3, 2001, 04:39:53 PM EDT

Why is auto-refresh not satisfactory? - (tablizer) - (125) - Oct. 5, 2001, 07:18:25 PM EDT

Because I work on actual large scale applications. - (admin) - (124) - Oct. 7, 2001, 10:45:43 PM EDT

depends on needed refresh rate - (tablizer) - (123) - Oct. 8, 2001, 04:28:07 PM EDT

Re: depends on needed refresh rate - (admin) - (122) - Oct. 8, 2001, 04:39:16 PM EDT

Nothing is truely "instant" - (tablizer) - (121) - Oct. 9, 2001, 12:36:45 PM EDT

Re: Nothing is truely "instant" - (admin) - (95) - Oct. 9, 2001, 02:14:14 PM EDT

JavaScript but *not* client-side script? - (tablizer) - (94) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:39:19 PM EDT

Re: JavaScript but *not* client-side script? - (admin) - (93) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:46:31 PM EDT

that is still client-side script/applet - (tablizer) - (92) - Oct. 10, 2001, 10:42:52 PM EDT

Fundamental disconnect - (Yendor) - Oct. 11, 2001, 01:48:36 AM EDT

Re: that is still client-side script/applet - (admin) - (90) - Oct. 11, 2001, 10:02:35 AM EDT

"generic" by what scope? - (tablizer) - (89) - Oct. 11, 2001, 02:06:01 PM EDT

Re: "generic" by what scope? - (admin) - (88) - Oct. 11, 2001, 03:57:51 PM EDT

security risks - (tablizer) - (87) - Oct. 12, 2001, 09:28:23 PM EDT

Re: security risks - (pwhysall) - (77) - Oct. 14, 2001, 05:37:59 AM EDT

Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (tablizer) - (76) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:21:04 PM EDT

Re: Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (pwhysall) - (48) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:28:33 PM EDT

Using 3 protocols is just plain silly, admit it! - (tablizer) - (47) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:26:41 PM EDT

Patently false: DHTML is not the same as DOM - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:38:17 PM EDT

I did not say it was - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:48:48 PM EDT

JS/DOM is not the same as DHTML. - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:58:11 PM EDT

Patently false: three different protocols - (admin) - (22) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:38:44 PM EDT

How does that make any difference? Browser still deals w/ 3 -NT - (tablizer) - (21) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:50:31 PM EDT

How does that make any difference? Developer still deals w/1 -NT - (admin) - (20) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:59:23 PM EDT

NOPE, 2 - (tablizer) - (19) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:20:03 PM EDT

Same in SCGUI. - (admin) - (18) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:24:50 AM EDT

odd counting - (tablizer) - (17) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:23:03 PM EDT

Re: odd counting - yes, you do count oddly. - (admin) - (16) - Oct. 17, 2001, 06:18:59 PM EDT

assumption missing - (tablizer) - (15) - Oct. 18, 2001, 12:51:13 AM EDT

That's even nuttier for you - (pwhysall) - (1) - Oct. 18, 2001, 02:56:45 AM EDT

Clarification - (pwhysall) - Oct. 18, 2001, 03:07:05 AM EDT

Re: assumption missing - (pwhysall) - (12) - Oct. 18, 2001, 03:00:53 AM EDT

Cytrix is NOT latency-friendly, and.... - (tablizer) - (11) - Oct. 19, 2001, 12:47:16 AM EDT

Yes it bloody well is! - (pwhysall) - (10) - Oct. 19, 2001, 03:18:56 AM EDT

HTTP is important - (tablizer) - (9) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:42:11 AM EDT

Bollocks - (pwhysall) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2001, 04:52:02 AM EDT

I saw it happen - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:43:55 PM EDT

Get a room guys... -NT - (bepatient) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:49:47 PM EDT

And that proves what? - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2001, 03:09:14 PM EDT

One last thing - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2001, 03:13:17 PM EDT

Actually Bryce has a point here - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Oct. 21, 2001, 02:14:16 AM EDT

But I'm wondering how relevant it is. - (static) - (2) - Oct. 21, 2001, 09:10:27 AM EDT

It is at least halfway - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 08:14:12 AM EDT

Not quite irrelevent... - (addison) - Oct. 22, 2001, 12:54:48 PM EDT

Patently false: HTML/DOM/JS requires full page reloads - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:39:46 PM EDT

Sorry, I misread it. - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:54:25 PM EDT

Once again: strawman alert - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:00:27 PM EDT

so you say - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:20:52 PM EDT

Re: so you say - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:30:05 PM EDT

Only one protocol in use - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:39:56 PM EDT

wrapping is not ridding - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:56:52 PM EDT

Well I never - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:59:15 PM EDT

Patently false: SCGUI is immune to versioning problems - (admin) - (9) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:40:27 PM EDT

dancing widgets - (tablizer) - (8) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:12:34 PM EDT

SCGUI: moving the complexity to the server. - (admin) - (7) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:17:39 PM EDT

VB, Delphi, Powerbuilder, etc. - (tablizer) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:30:25 PM EDT

Once again, where is the value-add? - (admin) - (5) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:37:37 PM EDT

same arguments over and over - (tablizer) - (4) - Oct. 16, 2001, 12:06:28 AM EDT

I'll agree with that. - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 09:35:03 AM EDT

So at least you agree that they want GUI's - (tablizer) - (2) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:33:36 PM EDT

Re: So at least you agree that they want GUI's - (pwhysall) - (1) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:39:30 PM EDT

and YOU don't have to present code examples? -NT - (tablizer) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:20:57 PM EDT

Patently false: DOM/JS is too complex - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:40:58 PM EDT

"Come here! I'll bite you to death" -NT - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:45:42 PM EDT

No, it's not. - (static) - Oct. 15, 2001, 10:30:40 PM EDT

Re: Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (admin) - (26) - Oct. 15, 2001, 10:03:02 AM EDT

The "assembler" argument again - (tablizer) - (21) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:07:33 PM EDT

And your proof is? - (admin) - (20) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:27:21 PM EDT

first choice? really really? first? - (tablizer) - (19) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:45:15 PM EDT

Er, gotcha? - (admin) - (18) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:56:17 PM EDT

Lame first choice - (tablizer) - (17) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:44:35 PM EDT

Sez you. - (admin) - (16) - Oct. 15, 2001, 03:24:56 PM EDT

Grid? - (tablizer) - (15) - Oct. 16, 2001, 12:12:18 AM EDT

Re: Grid? - (admin) - (14) - Oct. 16, 2001, 09:21:28 AM EDT

more to grids than that - (tablizer) - (13) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:28:54 PM EDT

Re: more to grids than that - (admin) - (12) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:29:10 AM EDT

Frame == Grid? Egad! - (tablizer) - (11) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:17:32 PM EDT

What's "Half-ess"? Half an S? -NT - (pwhysall) - (10) - Oct. 17, 2001, 06:46:06 PM EDT

Reply re: S/2 - (tablizer) - (9) - Oct. 18, 2001, 12:40:42 AM EDT

Don't swear then - (pwhysall) - (8) - Oct. 18, 2001, 02:55:33 AM EDT

anyhow, anybdy still wanna defend frames as grid substute? -NT - (tablizer) - (7) - Oct. 19, 2001, 12:42:47 AM EDT

Not frames, frame. - (admin) - (6) - Oct. 19, 2001, 09:29:07 AM EDT

problems with that approach - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:47:09 AM EDT

Nobody is defending "frames == grid" after all these weeks - (tablizer) - (4) - Nov. 8, 2001, 11:23:21 PM EST

Bryce - (pwhysall) - (3) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:42:46 AM EST

I will bet you $100.00 - (tablizer) - (2) - Nov. 9, 2001, 02:45:53 PM EST

I don't care - (pwhysall) - (1) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:29:28 PM EST

And stop it with the "listen" sh8t - (tablizer) - Nov. 11, 2001, 09:57:59 PM EST

Asynchronous xmit - (ChrisR) - (3) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:38:11 PM EDT

Re: Asynchronous xmit - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:43:32 PM EDT

Thanks... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 04:25:27 PM EDT

We're using it for updates... - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 04:47:18 PM EDT

Re: security risks - (admin) - (8) - Oct. 15, 2001, 09:59:21 AM EDT

Skinny client, skinny needs - (tablizer) - (7) - Oct. 15, 2001, 12:59:26 PM EDT

Re: Skinny client, skinny needs - (pwhysall) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:09:15 PM EDT

The "assembler" argument again - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:33:40 PM EDT

Your "point of view" - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:40:19 PM EDT

I dn't care whthr it's new nor not. It is better than JS+DOM -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:46:54 PM EDT

You have yet to demonstrate that. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:56:39 PM EDT

Re: Your "point of view" - (addison) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 01:06:47 PM EDT

"Plug-in"? Uhm, isn't that called an X Server...? -NT - (CRConrad) - Oct. 22, 2001, 06:47:47 PM EDT

I can see I'm going to have to go back to this again. - (admin) - (24) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:54:25 PM EDT

This is *not* an OO battle.......yet - (tablizer) - (23) - Oct. 10, 2001, 10:50:27 PM EDT

I think I'd give up, Bryce. - (static) - Oct. 11, 2001, 12:47:18 AM EDT

Funny... I could have sworn you said: - (admin) - (21) - Oct. 11, 2001, 10:06:43 AM EDT

"doable" is not the criteria I am using. - (tablizer) - (20) - Oct. 11, 2001, 02:00:52 PM EDT

ROFL - (admin) - (19) - Oct. 11, 2001, 04:02:25 PM EDT

not GUI. QED - (tablizer) - (18) - Oct. 12, 2001, 09:37:20 PM EDT

Nothing like answering the question, eh? - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 14, 2001, 06:36:05 AM EDT

and you did NOT answer my question - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:23:37 PM EDT

Because... - (pwhysall) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:30:24 PM EDT

Ideal? No. Better than SCGUI? Yes. - (admin) - (14) - Oct. 15, 2001, 09:53:24 AM EDT

HTML + DOM + JS is a fricken mess - (tablizer) - (13) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:36:57 PM EDT

A little challenge - (pwhysall) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:42:40 PM EDT

user interface - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 16, 2001, 01:31:47 AM EDT

Re: user interface - (pwhysall) - (4) - Oct. 16, 2001, 03:03:35 AM EDT

Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:44:02 PM EDT

Re: Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:48:40 PM EDT

Forgot one. - (pwhysall) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:51:32 PM EDT

sloppy counting - (tablizer) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:38:32 PM EDT

A little challenge - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:43:12 PM EDT

Re: HTML + DOM + JS is a fricken mess - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:48:10 PM EDT

starting a new road when traffic is sufficiently high - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:52:44 PM EDT

Re: starting a new road when traffic is sufficiently high - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:27:29 AM EDT

I have to disagree with your #2 response -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:19:24 PM EDT

No, you don't "have to". You just do so anyway. -NT - (CRConrad) - Oct. 18, 2001, 08:23:34 AM EDT

I'll have a large anchovy pizza, please. -NT - (pwhysall) - Oct. 30, 2002, 02:14:03 PM EST

Can you replace the frame with server-side push? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (6) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:31:48 PM EDT

Meaning? - (admin) - (5) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:40:22 PM EDT

I thought it did but... - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:35:55 PM EDT

The object is to avoid opening a connection every second. - (admin) - (3) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:52:50 PM EDT

40 per second? Faster than a MOVIE - (tablizer) - (2) - Oct. 9, 2001, 12:43:51 PM EDT

Re: 40 per second? Faster than a MOVIE - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 9, 2001, 02:17:19 PM EDT

From the mouth of.. erm.. babes. - (addison) - Oct. 22, 2001, 12:59:40 PM EDT

Synchronized browsing? - (ChrisR) - (4) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:45:26 PM EDT

That might not be a bad idea... - (admin) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:54:27 PM EDT

Simpler than that... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Sept. 17, 2001, 05:02:20 PM EDT

Gah. :-) - (admin) - Sept. 17, 2001, 05:14:10 PM EDT

I just said that (above)!! Copycat! :D -NT - (tseliot) - Sept. 17, 2001, 07:41:13 PM EDT

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (dshellman) - (3) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:09:50 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:15:10 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (dshellman) - (1) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:41:42 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber (new thread) - (admin) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:46:00 PM EST

My other car isn't worth talking about.
130 ms