Mk 27 wrote:
> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>
>> In sum, then...please don't tell me what I say is "patently ridiculous"
>
> It still seems to me that it is. Where there is html, there can be
> javascript.
Yes. There can also be CSS. There *should* be neither.
> I would far rather use one line
>
> <script type="text/javascript>create_menu_div(some parameters)</script>
>
> Than cut and paste the 20-50 lines of html this could represent, esp.
> since it will allow the use of DOM*.
Apparently you don't understand what I'm getting at here. I'm not
talking about cutting and pasting HTML as an alternative to inline JS
(although that's trivial with a partial or a helper, which should be
your first choices if all you need is repeating elements).
Rather what I'm talking about is simply having <div class="menu"></div>
in your HTML, then do something like
window.onload = function () {
$$('.menu').each(function (div) {
createMenuDiv(e);
};
};
in the separate JS file. Much cleaner; much better separation of
presentation and behavior. Almost (M)VCish -- the JS is sort of the
client-side controller.
> Also, using an event handler still
> entails putting some javascript in an html page somewhere.
Not necessarily. You can use the onload technique (as above) to assign
behavior without a single JS call in the HTML. All you need is the
external <script> tag in the <head>.
>
> You have hit a paradox by saying that you want to use prototype, etc.
> but you do not want to see any js calls in your html files.
It's not a paradox at all. It's perfectly feasible, and I know because
I have done it.
> I do
> understand it is an explicit goal of rails to minimize the amount of js
> that the developer has to deal with personally, but I am already
> comfortable with it.
So am I -- comfortable enough to know that I don't like Rails' approach
that much (although I do use it here and there for simplicity's sake).
> I could tie my left hand to the chair in order to
> guarantee that only my right hand will be used for typing, but why
> bother?
I'm really not impressed by the analogy. Properly separated JS is a
little harder to set up initially, but is much easier to deal with
later. Come to think of it, the same could be said of frameworks such
as Rails...
>
> Anyway, Marnen, these are *cosmetic* preferences. I would just hate to
> see the day when some weirdo consortium comes along and says "From now
> on, everyone must tie their left hand to the chair", altho I doubt that
> will be possible in this case.
Again: it is possible. It is feasible. It's not even particularly
difficult. I have done it on a complex application, and would do it
again in similar circumstances. It is not a cosmetic preference, but
rather an architectural one. And it is not my idea alone -- it comes
from the JS guidelines of Douglas Crockford ( http://www.crockford.com
), who is or was a JS architect at Yahoo! (he's also the guy who
discovered JSON and the classical inheritance patterns in JS). If
you're working with JS, I strongly recommend poking around his site if
you haven't already -- there's lots of useful stuff.
> *meaning there may be more unfortunate use of javascript still to come
> :O
Well, yeah...
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
