Peter,
Haha, I thought that's what you meant, meaning your original statement
was probably more correct, that the issue is decreasing.
Thanks for clarifying.
Gene
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:14 +0100, Peter Schneider wrote:
> Hi Gene,
>
> sorry if I have created so much confusion. ;)
>
> He
Hi Gene,
sorry if I have created so much confusion. ;)
Here's what I meant:
* The longer you wait, the lesser performance is an issue.
* Performance is increasing (it's getting better and better)
Hope that helps,
Peter
Original
From: Gene Amtower
Date: 16.12.2009 18:40
>
Please see small clarification below...
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:10 +0100, Peter Schneider wrote:
> >> As with most of the JavaScripts engine features, it seems to be
> that the
> >> performance issue of eval() is decreasing with every new browser
> version.
> >
> > I don't have this impression.
Hi Andreas,
here's my 2nd (more detailed) reply:
> Hi Peter,
> [...]
[...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
>>>
>>> Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
>>> regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
>>
>> I think it's a bit more than j
Dear Peter,
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Peter Schneider wrote:
> It is all about "do I trust the other side". In our special case the backend
> is
> under our control as well, so we know what to expect from that server.
and you are sure there is no bug in the server-side implementation ... under
no ci
Hi Andres,
just a quick reply
>> [...]
>> As with most of the JavaScripts engine features, it seems to be that the
>> performance issue of eval() is decreasing with every new browser version.
>
> I don't have this impression. Do you have any tests/references for this
> assumption?
Sorry, that wa
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:40, Peter Schneider wrote:
>
> Checking the received JSON message before parsing it is a good point in any
> case, anyway. I'm not sure, but I think something like that can be found in
> the
> "contrib"...
>
No, that's already done when the response type is set to "appl
Hi Peter,
Am 16.12.2009 um 15:03 schrieb Peter Schneider:
[...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me
(except
regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
I think it's a bit more than just scoping. As far as I
Hi Derrell
> [...]
> Hi Peter,
>
> "eval() is evil" is a common phrase that helps discourage those who don't
> understand the possible consequences of using it from ever using it. There
> is nothing inherently evil about eval(). The input to eval() must be
> sanitized to ensure that there is no c
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:03, Peter Schneider wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> >> [...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
> >
> > Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
> > regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
>
> I think it's a bit more than jus
Hi Andreas,
>> [...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
>
> Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
> regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
I think it's a bit more than just scoping. As far as I remember the eval() call
starts a complete
Hi Peter,
Am 16.12.2009 um 10:28 schrieb Peter Schneider:
> while I was 'cleaning up' our code base I've come along the JSON
> class of
> qooxdoo.
> Is there any reason why it uses the evil eval() function for
> evaluating and
> parsing the backend responses? Wouldn't "Function" be the better
12 matches
Mail list logo
