(the the vain of Tatoo from Fantasy island)
"The flame, the flame"
<insert fire extinguisher here>
(assuming of course the fire needs to be put out) hehe
Dawesi
Friday, February 25, 2005, 1:11:52 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:14:50 +1100, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Everyone,
>>
>> The last couple of days has seen some interesting words going back and
>> forth, I would like to post this to the list as a way of saying be a little
>> more careful.
> I wouldn't say interesting, i'd say mindless bantering... but eye of
> the beholder and all.
> The fact you're going over the same points over and over and over with
> now yet another thread leads me personally to believe that you
> obviously need to take the rest of the afternoon off, find the nearest
> bartender and unload your pent up misery while sharing a calming drink
> such as beer with em... head my advice.. you need to chill.
>> Due to the posts about the suggestion upgrades, should have made people a
>> little more aware that some developers tend to make too may assumptions to
>> what the others are asking for.
> Much like you're doing now.. practice what you preech.
>> As a member of many mailing lists that include, Java, ASP, J#, C# and
>> Coldfusion I have to say that this list really has many people who don't
>> take the time to see the problem at hand. What I mean is that other language
>> developers don't assume that they can afford to get the latest Visual Studio
>> .Net to solve their solution, but try to find a way around the current
>> problem. CF developers seem to be a breed onto themselves.
> Really? I'm on a quite a few lists and i'm finding the opposite? are
> you assuming this again? where is your research, hey if we are being
> factual about key points into what is taboo amongst forums like this i
> think its pertinent you backup your - what looks like exhaustive -
> research with case studies at the very least.
> Point is.. you clown.
>> I will use the recent posts on suggestion of upgrades as an example on this,
>> with the recent posts on the JS problem that I had because they are related.
> *rolls eyes* flogging a dead horse and all, why not...
>> There are many situations that we as developers have to face, and when I
>> come across badly written code whether it be because the developer had to do
>> it in a big hurry or because it was developed by someone who didn't really
>> know, it really makes it hard to maintain.
> Thats your problem, i'm yet to figure out how the hell this all has
> anything to do with the said topic at all... but anyway.
>> One thing that people are very quick at is the assumption that the person
>> asking the question hasn't looked at other options, in the case of
>> developing for older versions of Coldfusion there are many reasons as to why
>> they have to, whether it be because of shared hosts that will not upgrade or
>> the person that pays your salary/contract sees no need to upgrade.
> So whats your initial beef? the fact that 3 lines cost you .04c in
> bandwidth? or the fact that a reminder was too much for you to bare.
> Informing someone of a flaw in code, is a good thing in my opinion -
> whether they wrote it or not is irrelevant. Its like when you code and
> someone behind you goes "Oh Scott, you didn't close off that if
> statement properly..." Am i then going to sit there for an hour+
> lecturing him on the importants of shutting his mouth about things he
> assumes i didn't pickup on?
> document.all vs getElementById() was a *simple* reminder you ass. Not
> a declaration of war. If we want to draw lines in the sand, its
> actually your fault for not giving us the full information pertaining
> to your problem. You see, your question was:
> "...The following _javascript_ I would have thought would change the
> state of a checkbox, can anyone tell me why I am screwing this up..."
> Now actually one answer technically is correct in saying that not
> using getElementById() *COULD* also be a cause for errors you receive
> that and you weren't using dot.checked property checking. As you did
> not clarify the browser technology in question. So based on the
> limited amount of information the follow up answer had a large amount
> of relivance.
> "..The following _javascript_ I would have thought would change the
> state of a checkbox, can anyone tell me why I am screwing this up (its
> an IE Only application)..."
> Then you wouldn't be having a cry session....
>> Whatever the reason as a developer we have to be aware that there are
>> reasons behind everything that has been done in the past, that we end up
>> having to maintain in the future. Budgets, are the biggest factor in all of
>> this and if the budget does not allow for an upgrade whether it be a best
>> practice or a software upgrade then don't suggest anything else.
> thank you for that tip - but you now assume we don't know about that..
> again practice what you preech.
>> I tried to point out without going into too much depth, that the application
>> that I am working on has developed into something very big, budget is a big
>> issue and even a small change that has not been approved can have very
>> drastic consequences. But certain people did not wish to acknowledge this,
>> and instead showed there true colours by attacking further.
> You drew first blood, we handed you your ass. You got sooky, and felt
> the need for a 20 page essay on why the cfaussie world hates you. You
> also pointed that information out AFTER you attacked us and we probed
> further by backing our claims as to why getElementById() is the
> optimal choice - upgrade aside its relevant to todays DHTML and makes
> good coding sense. How you interpret that information or use that
> information is entirely your own choice.. choice being the keyword.
>> All I wanted to point out was that we all at some point in time will end up
>> maintaining older code, whether it be bad or good it will be running on
>> older technology and designed for the browser it was intended for at the
>> time. In 10 years who knows what we are writing today will run on the new
>> browsers or not, but till then we maintain what we have to maintain now.
>> Best practice or not, chance to upgrade or not.
> Thanks for spending another paragraph outlining what you stated in the
> previous one, as now reading the same point for the second time, i'm
> much wiser about something.......
>> It seems that there are too many people here that live on the edge of new
>> technology and forget about the older technology, and that has been proven
>> by the influx of posts in the last few days.
> Oh yeah, getElementById() is cutting edge, its the pepsi max
> generation of dhtml coding.. It was just a freakin reminder YOU
> JACKASS..
>> Other mailing lists can behave this way, but for some reason CFAussie can't
>> I wonder why that is. Is it because we think we can live on the edge of new
>> technology and forget the past! Wake up guys, the Y2K bug developers who
>> knew cobal/fotran made a packet because there were not too many who kept up
>> with older technology!!
> Assumptions again..
>> Regards
>> Andrew Scott
>> Technical Consultant
> Time for you to take some Andrew Happy time now and let the world
> continue on its chaotic course as you tried your darn best to liberate
> us from mass-ignorance in how folk should interact with one another on
> programming based mailing lists...
> I have no respect for you as a professional after this thread - while
> its not really its weight in worth - just thought i'd let you know
> official like and all so there is no assumptions made...
--
Best regards,
Chris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---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/
