2010/12/22 Garrett Smith <[email protected]>: > [...] > Well if document.clear() is failing, that's also a bug. Though > unrelated. document.clear has been around since before I started, > around NS4 / IE5.
It seems that "the times they are a-changin". :) | [Deprecated] This method used to clear the whole | specified document in early (pre-1.0) versions of | Mozilla. In recent versions of Mozilla-based | applications as well as in Internet Explorer and | Netscape 4 this method does nothing. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/document.clear | Not currently supported. To clear all elements in | the current document, use document.write(""), | followed by document.close. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536361(VS.85).aspx All in all, they dropped support for document.clear, and while Mozilla based browsers simply ignore it, IE now considers it to be a bug. I have never used document.clear, so this is new to me. :) I wrote: > IE 9 is a bit strange. 1135ms for localRead? Something is not right here. Maybe I need to reinstall. I got 6000ms in Sunspider with IE 9, so I thought it needs a little bit more investigation. I found out that debugging tools and addons are loaded for IE9 and they prevent JS to be compiled. [1] Disabling them gave me 340ms in Sunspider. So far so good. Interestingly I get these results for the tests now: 2650 - testGlobalAssign 718 - testLocalAssign 124 - testClosureAssign 121 - testClosureToGlobalAssign 959 - testGlobalRead 2696 - testLocalRead 58 - testClosureRead 65 - testClosureToGlobalRead 2614 - testObjPropertyAssign 3071 - testObjCreate Which is even more strange. - Balázs [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/08/04/html5-modernized-fourth-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx (in the comments) >> >> Better yet you could test these browsers on your computer, and so the >> numbers become comparable with the old ones. >> > > Might not be possible. > > I believe I used two machines: One mac (for Safari 2) and a Dell > running a cracked version of windows vista ultimate for the others. > That Dell is now running a legal copy of Windows 7, though is missing > drivers. Dell's official website states that Windows 7 is not > available, and that I can buy a new Dell. Anyway, that environment is > no longer available (which is a good thing overall). > > [...] > >> >> Because of the way how @private works, yes, it's not really private. >> It's more for those coming from Java or compiled languages who used to >> catch such errors at "compile time". I do think that @private in its >> current form is not doing much, because properties pre/postfixed with >> _ are already marked as private, and one has to be a bit silly if >> messes with such members of an object from outside. >> > Sure, but the definition of "private" is kind of loose. I believe I > have seen cases where a "subclass" was using "_" prefixed methods in > the "superclass". Other conventions include using double underscore or > one or more underscores at the end of the property name, as in > "myPrivateProp_". > >> But if pornwar3zads.js is successfully injected to your site it can do >> harm no matter if closures are used or not. Because it can access and >> mess with built-in and host objects you're using throughout your >> application. It's much more of a concern. >> > Sure, or it could use location.replace("http://example.net/";); > >> Finally, it may well be that the OOP system only kicks in if ADVANCED >> more is turned on, and it's by definition meant to be processing >> you're whole application. Still no excuse if you want real privacy of >> course. >> > Well a closure can be used to hide something. > > It's late. I'm going to sleep now. > -- > Garrett > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
