date:20081023

I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript
is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
references?


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Hi Brett,

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but
have some similarities...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
_javascript_ is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you
please site some references?
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

RE: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Kekay Olvera

 
JavaScript is an interpreted programming language with object-oriented 
capabilities
REF: 
JavaScript the Definitive Guide  5th Edition
David Flanagan
O'REILLY



Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:52:39 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]: [WSG] JavaScript clarification pleaseI am in the middle of a 
conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript is an object-oriented 
language. Is he correct? Could you please site some 
references?***List
 Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: 
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Nick Tomczek

Brett,

I'd start with the Wikipedia entry on OOP (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Orientated). It gives you a good
overview of what OOP is, and even has a paragraph on JavaScript and the
Document Object Model it uses. Wikipedia may not be the best source for
information if you are trying to form and argument, but it's a great place
to start looking for additinal resources since the articles are linked to
other sources, internal and external).

Nick

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Brett Patterson 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript
 is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
 references?

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Essential eBiz Solutions Ltd

Hi Brett, 

  Javascript can be object orientated, it all depends on how your
using it. If you are using DOM etc then it's object. It's just like PHP 5
which is now object orientated with classes like GD+ and some of the classes
that rely on classes to work. I'm not a JS expert so I can't really explain
more than that, but I'm sure someone on here knows a bit more. 

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: 23 October 2008 22:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

 

I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript
is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
references?

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Hi Anthony,

What about this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javascript Under Features
-- Dynamic Programming?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Anthony Ziebell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Hi Brett,

 JavaScript is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
 JavaScript is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
 some similarities...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

 Cheers,
 Anthony.

 Brett Patterson wrote:

 I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript
 is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
 references?

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

I am not trying to form an argument. But just trying to get my facts
straight. I don't want to sound dumb when talking to someone about
JavaScript.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Nick Tomczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Brett,

 I'd start with the Wikipedia entry on OOP (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Orientated). It gives you a good
 overview of what OOP is, and even has a paragraph on JavaScript and the
 Document Object Model it uses. Wikipedia may not be the best source for
 information if you are trying to form and argument, but it's a great place
 to start looking for additinal resources since the articles are linked to
 other sources, internal and external).

 Nick


 On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Brett Patterson 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
 JavaScript is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please
 site some references?

 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Hassan Schroeder


Brett Patterson wrote:
I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that 
JavaScript is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you 
please site some references?


How about the standard itself? :-)

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf

 Overview
   ...

   ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
   performing computations and manipulating computational objects
   within a host environment.

HTH,
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Hi Brett,

_javascript_ objects are augmented with prototype. It should be noted
that the example you provided also notes that the dot notation is
merely syntactic sugar - meaning it is just a little bit of eye-candy
which provides no extra functionality.

_javascript_ objects are merely arrays. This is why they are not real
objects. Objects and arrays are totally different.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
Hi
Anthony,
  
What about this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_javascript_
Under Features -- Dynamic Programming?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Anthony
Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  

Hi Brett,

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but
have some similarities...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

Cheers,
Anthony.



Brett Patterson wrote:
I
am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
_javascript_ is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you
please site some references?
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***


  
  
  
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

 Brett Patterson wrote:
 I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript
 is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
 references?

There's many different things people mean when they talk about object
orientation. If they talk about the Java mode of object orientation,
then JavaScript isn't object oriented but is pretty close. On the
other hand, if they talk about the Self mode of object orientation,
then JavaScript is definitely object oriented, while Java has it's
flaws. There is no single definition that people agree on, only an
arbitrary number of points on a list where no single language uses a
metaphor that covers them all.

Everything in JavaScript is an object. Objects inherit in a run time
delegation fashion from other objects in the prototype chain, a model
inspired by Self. Types are placed on values, not variables, but
everything has a type. Encapsulation comes from closures.

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 JavaScript is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
 JavaScript is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
 some similarities...

Class based inheritance is not necessary for a language to be object
oriented. Prototype delegation as mode of inheritance is less common
as language designs go, but it's just as powerful if not more so.

Above all, JavaScript is an object based language.

It has imperative and functional properties, it has a
statement-expression curlies-and-semicolons, it has object orientation
and higher order programming features, it has reified closures and
lexical scope with a few dynamic scope features etc. It's a hybrid
language. But it does have object orientation.
-- 
David liorean Andersson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

I didn't see that. :) But as I have read in other areas, JavaScript is based
on ECMAScript. And *Object-oriented programming (OOP)* is a programming
paradigm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm that uses 
objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29 and
their interactions to design applications and computer programs. Is this
correct?

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 Brett Patterson wrote:

 I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
 JavaScript is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please
 site some references?


 How about the standard itself? :-)

 http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf
 

  Overview
   ...

   ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
   performing computations and manipulating computational objects
   within a host environment.

 HTH,
 --
 Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.



 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Your point's are valid - my only real point here is
that it is more of a prototype-based language, than object.

Thanks,
Anthony.

liorean wrote:

Brett Patterson wrote:
I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that _javascript_
is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some
references?

There's many different things people mean when they talk about object
orientation. If they talk about the Java mode of object orientation,
then _javascript_ isn't object oriented but is pretty close. On the
other hand, if they talk about the Self mode of object orientation,
then _javascript_ is definitely object oriented, while Java has it's
flaws. There is no single definition that people agree on, only an
arbitrary number of points on a list where no single language uses a
metaphor that covers them all.

Everything in _javascript_ is an object. Objects inherit in a run time
delegation fashion from other objects in the prototype chain, a model
inspired by Self. Types are placed on values, not variables, but
everything has a type. Encapsulation comes from closures.

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

Class based inheritance is not necessary for a language to be object
oriented. Prototype delegation as mode of inheritance is less common
as language designs go, but it's just as powerful if not more so.

Above all, _javascript_ is an object based language.

It has imperative and functional properties, it has a
statement-_expression_ curlies-and-semicolons, it has object orientation
and higher order programming features, it has reified closures and
lexical scope with a few dynamic scope features etc. It's a hybrid
language. But it does have object orientation.

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Sure, that's what an "object" is. But OOP is not
just about an "object". There is a lot more involved.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of _javascript_ - but it has faux classes
and objects, and this is why my opinion of _javascript_ is that it is
prototype, not object.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
didn't see that. :) But as I have read in other areas, _javascript_ is
based on ECMAScript. And Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a
  programming paradigm that uses "objects" and their interactions
to design applications and computer programs. Is this correct?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hassan
Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
Brett Patterson wrote:

I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
_javascript_ is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you
please site some references?



How about the standard itself? :-)

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf

Overview
 ...

 ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
 performing computations and manipulating computational objects
 within a host environment.

HTH,
-- 
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445  === http://webtuitive.com

dream. code.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



  
  
  
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO
in my opinion, however _javascript_ is not a full implementation of
ECMAScript, unfortunately.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
didn't see that. :) But as I have read in other areas, _javascript_ is
based on ECMAScript. And Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a
  programming paradigm that uses "objects" and their interactions
to design applications and computer programs. Is this correct?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hassan
Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  
Brett Patterson wrote:

I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that
_javascript_ is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you
please site some references?



How about the standard itself? :-)

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf

Overview
 ...

 ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
 performing computations and manipulating computational objects
 within a host environment.

HTH,
-- 
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445  === http://webtuitive.com

dream. code.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



  
  
  
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 JavaScript objects are augmented with prototype. It should be noted that the
 example you provided also notes that the dot notation is merely syntactic
 sugar - meaning it is just a little bit of eye-candy which provides no extra
 functionality.

 JavaScript objects are merely arrays. This is why they are not real objects.
 Objects and arrays are totally different.

Actually, they are hash tables/dictionaries/maps or whatever word you
prefer to call them by. Anyway, they are sparse string keyed objects
of variable size and not dense integer keyed arrays of fixed size. In
fact, true arrays are only available in JavaScript in the form of
strings, and those are read only.
-- 
David liorean Andersson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Well, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages , and I see your points.
But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not prototype-based. Would it be
object-oriented, like Java or C++, or object-based?

I read these as well:

   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based

   and

   -
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too contradictory,
based on the articles linked.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Luke Hoggett


I once heard javascript described:

javascript is a flower in a garden full of weeds

or was it

javascript is a weed in a garden full of flowers

tel your co-arguer one of those and you'll win hands down.

Regards.
Luke

Brett Patterson wrote:
Well, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming 
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages , and I see 
your points. But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not 
prototype-based. Would it be object-oriented, like Java or C++, or 
object-based?


I read these as well:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based

  and

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too 
contradictory, based on the articles linked.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

No, I get it now. It is an argument waiting to happen. :) On a different
note, I have a problem with the JavaScript code I am writing. I am new to
JavaScript, and this is another reason as to why I was asking, and to know
for sure what it is/was/whatever. The code is suppose to replace a paragraph
for Microsoft Internet Explorer users, using the replace(). As I understand
it, there is a maximum of 255 characters in a line, and here is the line I
am using. How do I get it to work? This is the code I am using:

p class=notessupNote:/sup If you want to view only a specific table,
you will have to double-click on each drop-down Title, in order to view
individual tables.br /
script type=text/javascript
!--
 var str=supNote:/supnbsp;If you want to view only a specific table,
you will have to double-click on each drop-down Title, in order to view
individual tables.;
 var browser = navigator.appName;
if(browser==Microsoft Internet Explorer)
 {
 document.write(str.replace(/supNote:/supnbsp;If you want to view
only a specific table, you will have to double-click on each drop-down
Title, in order to view individual tables./, supInternet Explorer User's
Note:/sup You may have to triple click the drop-down title, in order to
view individual tables.));
 }
//--
/script


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO in my opinion, however
 JavaScript is not a full implementation of ECMAScript, unfortunately.

JavaScript is a superset of ECMAScript. If ECMAScript is opbject
oriented, so is JavaScript.

As I mentioned, classes are not necessary or even important for a
language to be object oriented. Prototypal delegation is just one of
several methods of implementing inheritance in an object oriented
language. It doesn't make the language any less object oriented.

Please go have a read through this:uri:http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html

JavaScript fulfills plenty of them.




2008/10/24 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Well, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming and
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages , and I see your points.
 But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not prototype-based. Would it be
 object-oriented, like Java or C++, or object-based?

Depends on what definition you use for either of those terms. Object
orientation? Java and C++ fail to live up to some of the possible
criteria for a language being object oriented. Object based? Do you
mean that every value is an object? If so, JavaScript is that. Do you
mean that it uses prototypal inheritance? Then it is that. Do you mean
it has a limited form of object orientation without inheritance or
polymorphism? If so it is not, because it has those features.

 I read these as well:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based

 and

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

 What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too contradictory,
 based on the articles linked.

That's because the definitions are fuzzy and broad. A language is
better described by what type of programming it facilitates than by
what it can be considered to be, anyway. JavaScript uses prototype
delegation. That means that properties are looked up in the object
itself, and then in the prototype of the object, and so on untill the
top of the prototype chain has been reached. It's a mode of direct
implementation-to-implementation inheritance. Classical inheritance on
the other hand sets up a chain or tree of classes, and objects are
instances of those classes. In other words objects do not inherit
directly from other objects but rather from this chain or tree of
classes - a template chain if you want, though in some of these
langauges the word template means something different. These languages
typically also have a type-to-class correspondence and a deep type
hierarchy system. Some have a separate interface scheme that is about
object and function signatures connected with the type system but that
does not allow code inheritance.
Some have only this and no implementation inheritance mechanism.
-- 
David liorean Andersson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant.
Right...

liorean wrote:

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO in my opinion, however
_javascript_ is not a full implementation of ECMAScript, unfortunately.

_javascript_ is a superset of ECMAScript. If ECMAScript is opbject
oriented, so is _javascript_.

As I mentioned, classes are not necessary or even important for a
language to be object oriented. Prototypal delegation is just one of
several methods of implementing inheritance in an object oriented
language. It doesn't make the language any less object oriented.

Please go have a read through this:uri:http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html

_javascript_ fulfills plenty of them.

2008/10/24 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

Well, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages , and I see your points.
But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not prototype-based. Would it be
object-oriented, like Java or C++, or object-based?

Depends on what definition you use for either of those terms. Object
orientation? Java and C++ fail to live up to some of the possible
criteria for a language being object oriented. Object based? Do you
mean that every value is an object? If so, _javascript_ is that. Do you
mean that it uses prototypal inheritance? Then it is that. Do you mean
it has a limited form of object orientation without inheritance or
polymorphism? If so it is not, because it has those features.

I read these as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too contradictory,
based on the articles linked.

That's because the definitions are fuzzy and broad. A language is
better described by what type of programming it facilitates than by
what it can be considered to be, anyway. _javascript_ uses prototype
delegation. That means that properties are looked up in the object
itself, and then in the prototype of the object, and so on untill the
top of the prototype chain has been reached. It's a mode of direct
implementation-to-implementation inheritance. Classical inheritance on
the other hand sets up a chain or tree of classes, and objects are
instances of those classes. In other words objects do not inherit
directly from other objects but rather from this chain or tree of
classes - a template chain if you want, though in some of these
langauges the word template means something different. These languages
typically also have a type-to-class correspondence and a deep type
hierarchy system. Some have a separate interface scheme that is about
object and function signatures connected with the type system but that
does not allow code inheritance.
Some have only this and no implementation inheritance mechanism.

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-23 Thread Breton Slivka

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant. Right...

I think you're confused. Maybe you you're thinking of the w3c dom-
Which is a seperate standard and topic from javascript/ecmascript.
All implementations of javascript in all the current browsers are
fully Ecmascript edition 3 compliant, so far as I'm aware. If you have
additional information about specific incompatibilities, I would be
extremely interested.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Brett,

JavaScript is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
JavaScript is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

A language's method of inheritence is orthogonal to (has nothing to do
with) whether the language is object oriented. Inheritance is an OO
idea, so the fact that javascript has inheritence of any kind pretty
well cements that it at least has object oriented capabilities. But it
goes further than that, because all values in javascript inherit from
Object, and can be treated as objects, making Javascript a fully
object oriented language. It is not an imperative language with OO
features tacked on, like php5. Javascript is OO from the ground up.

The tricky thing here, and the part that I think is confusing you, is
that most languages described as OOP languages include an entity
called Class that javascript doesn't appear to have. You might draw
from this the conclusion that if a language doesn't have class, then
it is not OOP. Truth: class is just a random concept that quite a
lot of language designers happened to fixate on. Class is not
central to OOP. Object Orientation is *not* a computer science concept
with solid foundations in mathematics and philosophy. There is *no*
formal definition for what OOP is. There is no universally agreed on
method for determining whether something is or is not OOP. OOP was
just an idea from some guy named Alan Kay, that he used as the basis
for his language SmallTalk. He designed SmallTalk that way because it
felt right, and he thought that it saved time. The concept was useful
enough that it became popular. This makes OOP more of a meme than a
scientific theory, as such. read more here:
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html

A later object oriented programming language called SELF showed that
classes were not necessarily the most important concept about Object
orientation. The most useful aspect of object orientation
historically, has been the bundling of code with the data it operates
on. Inheritence has recently been shown to be somewhat less important
and useful than it's been seen to be in the past. (deep inheritence is
bad practice in JAVA, for instance, in favor of interfaces). Alan Kay
once expressed surprise at how fixated on classes many later
programming languages have become, as he saw his concept of message
passing to be the most important aspect of the design.

Javascript is a language which is well documented to be a mashup
between 3 languages. It's a combination between SELF (Object
orientation, and prototype based inheretence), with scheme (functions
as first class values), dressed up with JAVA like syntax. (curly
braces)

Javascript contains all the important and useful parts of the object
orientation meme. Since javascript everything in javascript is an
object- including functions, you can bundle code along with data into
a single object, storing functions as values on the object. Objects
delegate missing properties and methods to their prototypes, providing
a scheme for direct instance-to-instance inheritence which mimmicks
message passing.

So there you have it. Whether javascript is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition). It's a
bit like pondering whether Piet Mondrian was an artist, because he
didn't paint pictures of real things. Of course he is, but it's
confusing because Mondrian was unlike any other artist anyone had ever
seen. In the same way, Javascript is an OO language unlike any other
OOP language most people have seen. (most people haven't seen SELF, or
newtonscript, or io, or REBOL)

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

 2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO in my opinion, however
 JavaScript is not a full implementation of ECMAScript, unfortunately.

 liorean wrote:
 JavaScript is a superset of ECMAScript. If ECMAScript is opbject
 oriented, so is JavaScript.


2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant. Right...

Every language has it's implementation holes where the spec and
implementations disagree. However, JavaScript as implemented in the
SpiderMonkey engine is in fact a full implementation of ECMAScript
except for a few mostly minor fringe issues (most of them bugs, a few
of them spec bugs, some reality-trumps-specification issues). So are
Futhark, JavaScriptCore and V8 also. JScript is a bit further off, but
it's not extremely far off.

Go on, try to find a pure ECMAScript feature that is not implemented
in mentioned engines. There are a few, but I bet you'll have to try
pretty many things before you find one. And none of them are about a
whole major feature being broken.
-- 
David liorean Andersson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Whether _javascript_ is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition)
Agreed, hence the diverse arguments for / against,
and no way everyone would be able to agree on it. Perhaps we need to
write a standard on OO.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Breton Slivka wrote:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant. Right...

I think you're confused. Maybe you you're thinking of the w3c dom-
Which is a seperate standard and topic from _javascript_/ecmascript.
All implementations of _javascript_ in all the current browsers are
fully Ecmascript edition 3 compliant, so far as I'm aware. If you have
additional information about specific incompatibilities, I would be
extremely interested.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Brett,

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

A language's method of inheritence is orthogonal to (has nothing to do
with) whether the language is object oriented. Inheritance is an OO
idea, so the fact that _javascript_ has inheritence of any kind pretty
well cements that it at least has object oriented capabilities. But it
goes further than that, because all values in _javascript_ inherit from
Object, and can be treated as objects, making _javascript_ a fully
object oriented language. It is not an imperative language with OO
features tacked on, like php5. _javascript_ is OO from the ground up.

The tricky thing here, and the part that I think is confusing you, is
that most languages described as OOP languages include an entity
called "Class" that _javascript_ doesn't appear to have. You might draw
from this the conclusion that if a language doesn't have "class", then
it is not OOP. Truth: "class" is just a random concept that quite a
lot of language designers happened to fixate on. "Class" is not
central to OOP. Object Orientation is *not* a computer science concept
with solid foundations in mathematics and philosophy. There is *no*
formal definition for what OOP is. There is no universally agreed on
method for determining whether something is or is not OOP. OOP was
just an idea from some guy named Alan Kay, that he used as the basis
for his language SmallTalk. He designed SmallTalk that way because it
felt right, and he thought that it saved time. The concept was useful
enough that it became popular. This makes OOP more of a meme than a
scientific theory, as such. read more here:
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html

A later object oriented programming language called SELF showed that
classes were not necessarily the most important concept about Object
orientation. The most useful aspect of object orientation
historically, has been the bundling of code with the data it operates
on. Inheritence has recently been shown to be somewhat less important
and useful than it's been seen to be in the past. (deep inheritence is
bad practice in JAVA, for instance, in favor of interfaces). Alan Kay
once expressed surprise at how fixated on classes many later
programming languages have become, as he saw his concept of "message
passing" to be the most important aspect of the design.

_javascript_ is a language which is well documented to be a mashup
between 3 languages. It's a combination between SELF (Object
orientation, and prototype based inheretence), with scheme (functions
as first class values), dressed up with JAVA like syntax. (curly
braces)

_javascript_ contains all the important and useful parts of the object
orientation meme. Since _javascript_ everything in _javascript_ is an
object- including functions, you can bundle code along with data into
a single object, storing functions as values on the object. Objects
delegate missing properties and methods to their prototypes, providing
a scheme for direct instance-to-instance inheritence which mimmicks
message passing.

So there you have it. Whether _javascript_ is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition). It's a
bit like pondering whether Piet Mondrian was an artist, because he
didn't paint pictures of "real" things. Of course he is, but it's
confusing because Mondrian was unlike any other artist anyone had ever
seen. In the same way, _javascript_ is an OO language unlike any other
OOP language most people have seen. (most people haven't seen SELF, or
newtonscript, or io, or REBOL)

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Oh, most definitely agreed. Sorry if I started an argument, I only wanted to
know what it was. I don't know if it is just me, but this topic seems to be
too controversial. Thank you all for answering.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

*Whether javascript is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition)*

Agreed, hence the diverse arguments for / against, and no way everyone
would be able to agree on it. Perhaps we need to write a standard on OO.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Breton Slivka wrote:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Anthony Ziebell[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:

A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant. Right...

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Anthony Ziebell[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Brett,

JavaScript is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
JavaScript is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

The tricky thing here, and the part that I think is confusing you, is
that most languages described as OOP languages include an entity
called Class that javascript doesn't appear to have. You might draw
from this the conclusion that if a language doesn't have class, then
it is not OOP. Truth: class is just a random concept that quite a
lot of language designers happened to fixate on. Class is not
central to OOP. Object Orientation is *not* a computer science concept
with solid foundations in mathematics and philosophy. There is *no*
formal definition for what OOP is. There is no universally agreed on
method for determining whether something is or is not OOP. OOP was
just an idea from some guy named Alan Kay, that he used as the basis
for his language SmallTalk. He designed SmallTalk that way because it
felt right, and he thought that it saved time. The concept was useful
enough that it became popular. This makes OOP more of a meme than a
scientific theory, as such. read more
here:http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html

http://users.ipa.net/%7Edwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html

[WSG] Nested List Problem

2008-10-23 Thread Lynette Smith


Good afternoon

Am using Russ Wheatley's Simple Nested Rollover List from A List Apart.

div id=nav
   ul id=navlist
   li id=activea href=index.html 
id=currentHOME/a

   ul id=subnavlist
   li id=subactivea href=operation.html 
id=subcurrentOperation/a/li

   lia href=projects.htmlProjects/a/li
   lia href=members.htmlCommittee and 
Members/a/li

   /ul
   /li
  
   lia href=#WEED SPECIES/a/li

   ul id=subnavlist
   li id=subactivea href=# 
id=subcurrentWatsonia/a/li

   lia href=#Oxalis/a/li
   lia href=#Carnation Weed/a/li
   lia href=#Taro/a/li
   /ul
  
   lia href=#PUBLICATIONS/a/li and so on...


Because of the repetition of  things like ul id=subnavlist it is not 
validating.  The first section (only bit actually with pages) looks good 
and works.
The example on A List Apart only dealt with subitems in the first 
section  so I am not sure if I am meant to put in subactive, current 
and so on for every section or not.
For example, in the line  lia href=projects.htmlProjects/a/li, 
should that be li id=subactivea href=projects.html 
id=subcurrentProjects/a/li?

Am I meant to put in ul id=subnavlist at the start of every sub-section?

Thanks!

Lyn

www.westernwebdesign.com.au
Perth, Western Australia


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] div over flash

2008-10-23 Thread Michael MD



param name=wmode value=transparent / should do the trick, with 
z-index

of course.



I think this works on some browsers, but not everything

It might not be possible in some browsers or with some older versions of 
flash player.
(I guess also that there may be similar problems with other types of content 
shown by browser plugins)


I would rather try to avoid attempting to put html content over the top of 
content shown by plugins where possible,
...though there are times this is hard to avoid - eg when adding flash 
content to an existing site with dropdown menus
- in that case all I can do is to use wmode (as above) and also try to 
minimize the impact on usability in browsers where wmode does not work by 
making sure that there are other ways to get to items in any important 
navigation links that may end up under the flash..






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Nested List Problem





Hi Lynette,

The first list has a nested list correctly inside of the list item,
however your subsequent list items end the list item element before the
new nested list begins...

e.g:

lia href=""WEED
SPECIES/a/li
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li
  lia
href=""Oxalis/a/li
  lia href=""Carnation
Weed/a/li
  lia
href=""Taro/a/li
 /ul

should be:

lia href=""WEED
SPECIES/a
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li
  lia
href=""Oxalis/a/li
  lia href=""Carnation
Weed/a/li
  lia
href=""Taro/a/li
 /ul
/li


Lynette Smith wrote:
Good
afternoon
  
Am using Russ Wheatley's Simple Nested Rollover List from A List Apart.
  
div id="nav"
 ul id="navlist"
  li id="active"a href=""
id="current"HOME/a
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a
href="" id="subcurrent"Operation/a/li
  lia
href=""Projects/a/li
  lia
href=""Committee and Members/a/li
 /ul
 /li
 
lia href=""WEED
SPECIES/a/li
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li
  lia
href=""Oxalis/a/li
  lia href=""Carnation
Weed/a/li
  lia
href=""Taro/a/li
 /ul
   
lia
href=""PUBLICATIONS/a/li and so on...
  
Because of the repetition of things like ul id="subnavlist" it
is not validating. The first section (only bit actually with pages)
looks good and works.
The example on A List Apart only dealt with subitems in the first
section so I am not sure if I am meant to put in "subactive",
"current" and so on for every section or not.
For example, in the line lia
href=""Projects/a/li, should that be
li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Projects/a/li?
Am I meant to put in ul id="subnavlist" at the start of every
sub-section?
  
Thanks!
  
Lyn
  
  www.westernwebdesign.com.au
Perth, Western Australia
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Nested List Problem





Hi Lynette,

I see what you are asking now - this would probably need to be
refactored to have it validate.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Lynette Smith wrote:

  
  
Thanks Anthony - I've corrected that - but won't the repetition of
ul id's stop it validating?
  
The first list has a nested list correctly inside of the list item,
however your subsequent list items end the list item element before the
new nested list begins...

e.g:

lia href=""WEED
SPECIES/a/li
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li
  lia
href=""Oxalis/a/li
  lia href=""Carnation
Weed/a/li
  lia
href=""Taro/a/li
 /ul

should be:

lia href=""WEED
SPECIES/a
 ul id="subnavlist"
  li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li
  lia
href=""Oxalis/a/li
  lia href=""Carnation
Weed/a/li
  lia
href=""Taro/a/li
 /ul
/li


  
Because of the repetition of things like ul id="subnavlist" it
is not validating. The first section (only bit actually with pages)
looks good and works.
The example on A List Apart only dealt with subitems in the first
section so I am not sure if I am meant to put in "subactive",
"current" and so on for every section or not.
For example, in the line lia
href=""Projects/a/li, should that be
li id="subactive"a href=""
id="subcurrent"Projects/a/li?
Am I meant to put in ul id="subnavlist" at the start of every
sub-section?
  

  
.
  
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Nested List Problem

2008-10-23 Thread Lynette Smith




I see what you are asking now - this would probably need to be 
refactored to have it validate.


Cheers,
Anthony.


Perhaps just change the id's to classes?

Kind regards

Lyn



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Nested List Problem