In JS in general or in Server-side JS? I code quite happily using just Textpad, have done for years. Guess its what you used to. Don't get me wrong I love going back to Visual Studio for .net (as the framework is simply too big!) but JS is a small enough subset that I can be productive enough. That said a bit more code complete would be good, if it makes me more productive then all the better.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Roman Land <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it just me or the lack of code completion is annoying? > > Especially when writing big projects, not being able to see methods and > properties from other classes is annoying.. > > Anyway, I doubt code completion can be done with JS.. > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Pete Duncanson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Yep, its super easy to get started too: >> >> <%@ Language="JScript" %> >> <% >> >> for( var i=0; i < 10; i++ ) { >> Response.Write( "<br />" + i + " - MooTool Server-side!" ); >> } >> >> // Alt syntax >> for( var i=0; i < 10; i++ ) { >> %> >> <br /> >> <%= i %> - MooTool Server-side! >> <% >> } >> >> %> >> >> If you include the Mootools server-side cut then you get Class, String >> goodies, etc too. simply include a SSI at the top of your file: >> >> <%...@language="JScript" %> >> <!--#include file="mootools.asp"--> >> <% >> // your code here >> %> >> >> You do need to wrap the mootools code in <% %> for the server to know its >> ASP though. >> >> ASP used to get a terrible rep for all the mixing of code/presentation and >> repetition but if you put some thought into it you can come up with some >> cracking apps that are nice and clean. Plus you can build up some nice >> libraries too esp. when using mootools Class :) >> >> My trouble is I struggle with the *nux stuff as I've been coding on MS >> stuff for 15 years. But as JS runs in all browsers its been great to >> see/use/expand all the client-side developments of recent years server side. >> Out biggest clients site is all JScript ASP and no sign of it going >> anywhere, and why should it. Its plenty fast enough and with a little >> patching up with .net where it does struggle (we have a .net image resizer >> and XML cacher layer for our CMS) it gets better and better. Anyway, I >> wondered if a ASP solution (following CommonJS if possible) would help more >> MS boys like me take interest? >> >> I will say this though, coding server side in JS just puts a smile on my >> face, far more fun than .net :) >> >> Pete >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Aylott < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So you're using server-side JScript on IIS with asp? >>> >>> Very cool >>> >>> — Thomas Aylott >>> SubtleGradient >>> MooTools >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Pete Duncanson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Excellent stuff! Theres me thinking I was the only one using it >>>> commercially. >>>> >>>> Still trying to get my head around how the CommonJS stuff works, on >>>> first look it seems to not want you to modify any of the Native objects >>>> which would be a pain, no .each() etc. available without some hoop jumping. >>>> We could end up lots of a lovely modules that all use different frameworks >>>> which could really be a bind and lead to bloat. That or we end up with a >>>> unified version (which I guess is what CommonJS is about but theres no >>>> mention of a spec as yet) which would seem sensible but a sticky problem to >>>> start as it will be a mind field of X does it like this, Y does it like >>>> that >>>> style wars. >>>> >>>> In our ASP code we've been using Response.Write's to push stuff to the >>>> response stream but after finding Jack and JSON Template I'm now thinking >>>> of >>>> creating a new code of our code that tries to emulate this somewhat with a >>>> final Response.Write at the end of the script. Also had an idea to create a >>>> XML Document for each page which could be loaded from a static (or multiple >>>> statics) and then you could do Element goodness with server-side before you >>>> write it down to the Response Stream, this would give client-side coders a >>>> leg up on how to do Server-Side as most of the DOM functions would be the >>>> same. Is that an insane idea? I'm still pondering it :) >>>> >>>> Believe it or not the XML manipulation stuff is pretty damn fast on ASP >>>> (MS got the guy who wrote the MS DOM stuff in for the re-write of their >>>> .net >>>> implementation as their initial version was massively slower than the old >>>> COM version). All the talk of ASP being slow tends to be based on old >>>> articles from 10 years ago. On modern machines in the real world its >>>> fantastically fast and really, really good fun to code with :) >>>> >>>> Pete >>> >>> >> > > > -- > --- > "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." > > - Albert Einstein > >
