Grant, I am not being critical of helpful posts, but when you are told you should do it this way because of best practices then that is assuming that I had control of the code to start with. Secondly your comments about replacing the code from document.all is another way of saying to me that you are not aware of the situation at hand, I am trying to give you a clue that not all situations require the best practice scenario. And in this case I could change the code to use what you suggest, but then I would have to sit there and test every module within the framework and who will pay for that, will you pay for that!
When I am being paid to maintain and support, I am not going to go out of my way to make changes to a live system and introduce problems that I am not being paid for, and that is what is at stake and why I make my comments, anyone who has been around development long enough will know this. Not whether I should be using best practice or not, and not if I want to use best practice in the future or not. Like the earlier posts on upgrading of CF5.0 to CF MX.. If I could I would, I can't so I won't and in an ideal world be could all be coding in the same manner and using the same technologies right from the moment of its release. We don't and I for one am sick of people like yourself that might wish to push to newbie's that this is a best practice. As I said there is information out there on best practices, and I wasn't asking for the best practice to make this browser non specific, I asked why it wasn't working the way it should. The point is unless the poster asks for best practices, no one should come back and say that this is not the way you should be doing it, because that would be assuming that that person had control of it too start with. Grant all you are going to keep doing, is to push how much you don't know about software development when it comes to maintaining code, your attitude to me is well I would have done it this way and you'll go and do it that way, think about the cost of that before you open your mouth, and you might see that people don't have choices. And one last thing, newbie's are always asking the questions that they need to ask. So if they are unsure then they will ask for best practices or how should I etc. I pity your employer, because I know that you'll be costing him a lot of money to develop things that he never wanted done!! Regards Andrew Scott Technical Consultant NuSphere Pty Ltd Level 2/33 Bank Street South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of grant Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2005 1:37 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Javascript Checkbox change Jebus! Get a grip man! > My point exactly, and you have just confirmed that you'll continue > pushing best practices even if that person doesn't want to know that. the person that doesn't want to know about best practices is an idiot. they're called best practice for a reason. pushing best practice is an admirable quality. the best practice comments on your post weren't 'having a dig' at you, they were more of a FYI, for yourself and for any n00bs that might look at your code and duplicate it. if i were going to have a dig at you, it would probably be along the lines of clogging the newsgroup with questions that are really easy to find the answer to. or knee-jerk reactions to helpful contributions. > on someone because they are stuck with older code to maintain, and > that is the key older code to maintain. i just don't get this. it's javascript - a client-side language, where the browser age is important, not the code. i can understand that if you are coding on a CF3.1 server, you have to code to that server, but if you're coding on a CF5 server with a CF3.1 codebase, you can start using the CF5 tags. You don't have to be all parameterExists() just because it's there in the code; you can get isDefined(), baby. > Get off your high horse about saying that mentioning best practices is > good for all to know, because that can be pointed out in a separate > email, not to the person who is after a solution for their current problem. ...riiight. separate threads for comments. and seperate threads on those comments too, right? and separate threads for... > In my case it is older technology that is tied to a specific platform, > I was please describe this platform that requires Document.all. it would want to be some waaay out-of-date intranet with IE4 as SOE. > Steve, take a hint and learn that this is not an ideal world we live > in and don't push something that that person is maybe more than aware off. Unless, Steve, what you're saying is relevant to the general community. If it's drivel like this thread, we could probably do without. > Now I'll spell it out for you and others to read, I am interested in a > solution to a current problem I am not here to be told that I should > have done it this way or its best practice to do it this way, or I > need to upgrade to fix this problem. we helped you with a syntax problem. there was more syntax related information relevant to your post, which you got. maybe your posts should have a 'no additional information, no helpful suggestions' disclaimer on them. Most people don't care or make a fuss about getting an extra 10% for free. > more in line with best practices, but I am only being paid to maintain > not upgrade, to you see my point here now Steve. that doesn't mean you can't modify any document.all you come across, or start using document.getElementById from now on, now does it? But that would be the best practice. At the end of the day Andrew, it's probably not best practice to criticise helpful posts, no matter what your original question or intention was. Sincerely, Grant --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
