Hello Richard:
On Wed, 03 May 2000 13:23:58 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SH> Like everyone else on this list, I too have a problem with Java
> SH> script.
> SH> I have a major problem with it because, not only is it not compliant
> SH> with Arachne,
> it's the other way round ...
> _Arachne_ is not compliant with JS
> SH> but it is a Gate$ware crasher as well.
> ?? JavaScript was invented by Netscape Corporation
> (it was named LiveScript, and because of some extremely silly
> considerations was renamed to JavaScript)
> Java is a platform _INDEPENDANT_ (eg the EXACT opposit of Gate$ware ...) OO
> programming language
If it were invented by Netscape, then Bill Gates should have taken the same
consideration he does with anything else invented by Netscape. He should
have designed his operating system and browser to be incompatible with Java
Script. If Bill would have been smart enough to do that, then Java Script
would have never have taken off the ground.
> SH> With Arachne it doesn't perform as badly as it does on Gate$ware
> SH> because Arachne is trained to simply ignore it inasmuch as possible.
> ?? I don't know the exact definition of Gate$ware ...
Of course I mean anything designed and developed by Micro$oft, starting
with the advent of Window$.
> But I haven't seen any browser that has THAT MUCH trouble with JS.
There are many others on this list who have had THAT MUCH trouble with
JS. If you haven't, then you may consider yourself very lucky.
> All browsers fall into 2 categories.
> 1) they don't know JS; and therefore ignore it (JS is embedded in tags, so
> they do automatically ignore it.)
> 2) they know JS.
> 2a) JS is turned on -> JS is interpreted
In this case it is frequently interpreted as sh*t, and it might crash your
machine accordingly.
> 2b) JS is turned on -> JS is ignored.
It would be better to ignore it than to interpret it as sh*t.
> Arachne falls in category 1.
> BUT it has big problems ignoring JS. (category 2b has absolutely _NO_
> problems)
Category 2b has some problems. With MSIE you will sometimes receive an
error message saying that you will need to enable Java Script in order
for the page to be displayed. If you decide to enable JS, then one of
two things could happen:
1. The page will be displayed, and with no problems.
2. You will have problems, sometimes a major problem.
> SH> On Gate$ware it frequently causes your machine to display the "blue
> SH> screen of death".
> Don't you mean Java ??
> I have never heared of BSODs because of JavaScript.
I realize that there are technical differences between Java Script and Java,
but because of my well-founded prejudices in this regard, I will stereotype
all of the above as bad. When you hold a prejudice against an entire
category, you aren't interested in making distinctions among sub-categories.
Furthermore, you will have a natural inclination to resist anyone's attempt
to "reform" your views. Such is the nature of prejudice, and it is OK for
us to hold prejudices that don't involve hatred of other people. As far as
I'm concerned, Java and all of its kindred will become a good thing only
when they are all dead.
> [...]
> The crappy design of windows (especially 9x) has nothing to do with your
> browser.
> SH> You would think that Bill Gates would do something about the problem
> SH> and train his Window$ware to simply ignore Java script.
> You can simply turn of JS, and this works perfectly !!
No, this usually does not work. Turning off JS will quite frequently
prevent you from accessing any portion or any aspect of the web-site.
It would be nice if web-site developers would design their pages so as
to display the straight-up HTML portions for those who elect to turn
off JS or for those whose browsers have no JS capability.
> (And to be honest, I use JS in Linux and Windows with NS, and NEVER ever
> had any problems with that ... except with arachne)
> Why should Bill Gates train Windows to ignore JS ??
If Bill Gates should train Window$ to ignore JS, then most web-site
developers would stop using it. If this were to hopefully happen, then
other browser developers would not even have to resort to programming all
of the bloat necessary for dealing with it. Then everybody will be happy.
> It's the other way round ... Michael Pollak is training Arachne to
> understand JS !!
> SH> The problem with Java script would come to an end and web-site
> SH> developers would immediately abandon it if all operating system
> SH> developers should design into their systems some programming routines
> SH> to ignore it.
> SH> Without Java script everybody would be happy, even the windozers!
> I don't see your point ??
> Why should we abandon JS ?? Only because Arachne has problems with it.
> (which are caused ba bugs in arachne, and not by JS)
I don't care whether the bugs are in Arachne or in MSIE or in JS. If JS
were entirely abandoned altogether, then all these problems would disappear.
> Most people (OS independant) are already happy with JS.
Why are they happy with it? What kind of essential browsing functions can
you accomplish with JS that you can't do with straight-up HTML?
> And if they are not, they are able to disable it, and will never be bugged
> again.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
