I agree.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #54,425 by static 10/2/02 8:08:22 AM Reply	I agree. JavaScript is really a very ordinary language. Capable and complete in a lot of areas, but quite ordinary. I can't get quite the same thrill of making something work in JavaScript as in PHP (or Icon). I was going to add "at least it's not BASIC" but it sort of really is with a few C-ish and Java-ish things on top. :-/ Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #54,436 by deSitter 10/2/02 9:48:51 AM Reply	Re: I agree. Supposedly, Adobe has tightened the language as compared to common browser Javascript. Did you notice in particular how this was done? I'm never learned enough to know what's better or worse. -drl
Post #54,479 by ChrisR 10/2/02 12:21:23 PM Reply	Same language... ...different core objects. That is, html is built on top of the Document Object Model (DOM), whereas Adobe uses their own pdf document model. Means that the syntax and basic operators are the same, but the core objects which can be manipulated are different.
Post #54,492 by deSitter 10/2/02 12:44:40 PM Reply	Re: Same language... That's sort of what I've gathered, in not so precise language. That clarifies it for me. -drl
Post #54,588 by static 10/2/02 10:16:32 PM Reply	I didn't look. The language in and of itself has been pretty good for a while. But if they meant "replacing the browser DOM with our .pdf DOM" then that's not "improving and tightening the language" in my book and they shouldn't tried to sell it as such. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."

Comments Invited on Adobe Javascript - (deSitter) - (40) - Oct. 1, 2002, 11:44:40 PM EDT

Why can't they pick a better language? - (ben_tilly) - (37) - Oct. 2, 2002, 06:25:28 AM EDT

I agree. - (static) - (4) - Oct. 2, 2002, 08:08:22 AM EDT

Re: I agree. - (deSitter) - (3) - Oct. 2, 2002, 09:48:51 AM EDT

Same language... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Oct. 2, 2002, 12:21:23 PM EDT

Re: Same language... - (deSitter) - Oct. 2, 2002, 12:44:40 PM EDT

I didn't look. - (static) - Oct. 2, 2002, 10:16:32 PM EDT

You Perl people must like... - (ChrisR) - (31) - Oct. 2, 2002, 03:03:22 PM EDT

not new vernacular but sigil doesnt mean sigil anymore? - (boxley) - Oct. 2, 2002, 04:19:33 PM EDT

I didn't invent it - (ben_tilly) - (29) - Oct. 2, 2002, 07:03:51 PM EDT

Re: I didn't invent it - (deSitter) - (28) - Oct. 2, 2002, 07:37:42 PM EDT

It isn't, necessarily - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Oct. 2, 2002, 07:55:24 PM EDT

Re: It isn't, necessarily - (deSitter) - (3) - Oct. 2, 2002, 07:58:33 PM EDT

Why is that wrong? - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 2, 2002, 08:03:32 PM EDT

Not me - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2002, 08:37:49 AM EDT

You've got life easy - (tonytib) - Oct. 5, 2002, 01:55:11 AM EDT

Not idiomatically. - (static) - (22) - Oct. 2, 2002, 10:19:07 PM EDT

In Perl they are dereferencing operators -NT - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 2, 2002, 10:26:22 PM EDT

semicolon rant IV - (tablizer) - (20) - Oct. 3, 2002, 01:43:33 AM EDT

Or you can use periods. - (tuberculosis) - (19) - Oct. 3, 2002, 08:41:17 AM EDT

re: periods - (tablizer) - (18) - Oct. 5, 2002, 12:40:32 AM EDT

re: periods - (deSitter) - (17) - Oct. 6, 2002, 06:29:49 PM EDT

Huh? -NT - (tablizer) - (16) - Oct. 8, 2002, 11:40:57 PM EDT

Re: Huh? - (deSitter) - (15) - Oct. 9, 2002, 11:59:35 AM EDT

Who is "everyone"? - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 17, 2002, 03:53:17 PM EDT

Once More With Feeling - (deSitter) - (4) - Oct. 17, 2002, 05:09:06 PM EDT

I don't care about the 1970's, I hate them here and now - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 18, 2002, 11:20:43 PM EDT

Simple solution. - (static) - Oct. 19, 2002, 12:43:55 AM EDT

The Galileo of Computing! - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 19, 2002, 01:54:47 AM EDT

Others complain too - (tablizer) - Oct. 22, 2002, 02:32:44 AM EDT

Wrong. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 17, 2002, 05:12:06 PM EDT

Re: Wrong. - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 17, 2002, 05:34:53 PM EDT

This is a general trend - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 18, 2002, 07:25:31 AM EDT

Historical trivia that applies... - (hnick) - (5) - Oct. 17, 2002, 05:41:27 PM EDT

Nah, not Kernighan and Ritchie. - (a6l6e6x) - (4) - Oct. 17, 2002, 09:59:49 PM EDT

Right, Not K&R - (hnick) - (3) - Oct. 18, 2002, 08:13:04 AM EDT

Don't be. Sorry, I mean. -NT - (CRConrad) - Oct. 18, 2002, 08:30:21 AM EDT

Re: Right, Not K&R - (deSitter) - Oct. 18, 2002, 12:37:33 PM EDT

Actually, might it have been a "standard" to fit terminals? - (wharris2) - Oct. 21, 2002, 12:00:00 PM EDT

Initial Comments - (ChrisR) - (1) - Oct. 2, 2002, 06:26:07 PM EDT

Re: Initial Comments - (deSitter) - Oct. 7, 2002, 10:01:48 AM EDT

It's a Berkeley DB file - neat! I love retro.
53 ms