Brett Patterson skrev:
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is
owned by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented
in Internet Explorer.
I see that your question has already been answered. I will give some
additional points.
Mocha was
Keryx Web skrev:
JavaScript has no pure hash-tables, aka associative arrays. Object
properties can be used to emulate associative arrays, though. A PHP
programmer will feel very limited, though.
A JavaScript object *is* not an array ...
It can have methods as well as properties.
geekspeak
I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question
though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a
lot easier to understand.
Brett
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Patterson skrev:
I am sorry, but I must
Brett Patterson skrev:
I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question
though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make
it a lot easier to understand.
Brett
Normally JavaScript does not have block scope.
var foo = 1;
{
foo = 2;
}
alert(foo);
OK. Thanks
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Patterson skrev:
I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question
though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a
lot easier to understand.
Brett
liorean wrote:
(Netscape had originally intended to use the name LiveScript.)
2008/10/28 Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually, it was initially released as LiveScript and renamed later.
IIRC Navigator 2.0 also supported a mocha: pseudo-protocol like the
javascript: pseudo-protocol we
When you say support, are you saying that Internet Explorer will not execute
JavaScript, or it will execute JavaScript as JScript? And in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript link you provided it states that
JavaScript is heavily object-based, so should I assume this as well to be
correct?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:35
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
When you say support, are you saying that Internet Explorer will not
execute
JavaScript
JavaScript as JScript?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:35
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
When you say support
liorean wrote:
Anyway, by the time the first full
version of Navigator that had it was released (2.0) it had already
been renamed to JavaScript, so I'd hardly say it was released under
the LiveScript name.
Well, at this point I don't know exactly when a version of Navigator
was released
2008/10/28 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually it did say it is heavily object-based. But now, under Dynamic
Programming -- Objects as associated arrays, it says it is almost entirely
object-based. Looks like it just got updated. Internet Explorer does read
JavaScript, but does it
There is only one JavaScript, as created by Netscape. Though it can be used
for other things, such as programming an application, I think that is worded
right.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
liorean wrote:
Anyway, by the time the first full
JScript was originally created as an exact reverse engineering of
Javascript (including the mistakes), so that IE could read pages with
javascript on them. This was of course, during the browser wars when
they were competing for features. Jscript has fallen a bit behind
Javascript by now, so there
Anthony wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid I will have to throw up
my hands and give up on you. You are a lost cause. you cannot be
reached.
Oh, good. Can we return the list to web standards now?
Yes. But, one final question. Was the *first ever* implementation of
JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based?
Thank you all.
Oh and to David and Christian, in regards to the w3schools, I reread parts
of their site, and I understand now what you mean. My
2008/10/27 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes. But, one final question. Was the first ever implementation of
JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based?
Thank you all.
The first implementation of JavaScript is still alive in the form of
Mozilla
2008/10/27 liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The first implementation of JavaScript is still alive in the form of
Mozilla SpiredMonkey
Or SpiderMonkey, as it is properly called :)
--
David liorean Andersson
***
List Guidelines:
My statement was not worded correctly.
I use Java, C++, PHP and Javascript and I can tell you that out of the lot
of them, Javascript is the most difficult to incorperate conventional Object
Orientated design. For example you cannot simply define classes, or use
visability keywords (you can do
Not exactly.
My arguement was that while javascript has objects, it is indeed
prototype-based
It is only through arguement did any mention of javascripts
inheritence get a mention, which is also still true. This was not the
underlying factor, but something somone brought up.
I'm not
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My arguement was that while javascript has objects, it is indeed
prototype-based
Oh, we're not disputing that. But look at some of your earlier comments.
This for instance:
2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, that's what an object is.
Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others
have flat out denied it.
The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if
anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects.
Then, it followed with all sorts of garbage from those
It is my understanding that the bulk of those OOP design patterns are
useful to get around the limitations of static languages like C++ and
Java, that don't allow you to arbitrarily add/remove properties from
instances, change the type of a value, or allow higher order functions
(functions that
Brett Patterson skrev:
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?
I have read the whole thread up until now, but will answer your starting
message, since I am not
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. But, one final question. Was the first ever implementation of
JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based?
Thank you all.
Here is Brenden Eich, Javascript's creator, pontificating
Hey Breton,
I think the examples you gave are implemented in the PHP object and are
relatively simple to implement.
Cheers,
Anthony.
Breton Slivka wrote:
It is my understanding that the bulk of those OOP design patterns are
useful to get around the limitations of static languages like
Thanks Keryx,
Some interesting information. Nice point on the arrays actually being
objects. At one point you did mention _javascript_ is object-based, then
in another, prototype-based. So that confuses me a little. If your
point is that it is object-based and uses prototype to inherit
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others have
flat out denied it.
The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if
anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects.
Now you're doing that
Anthony Ziebell skrev:
Still confuses me though - if someone is object-orientated but is in
essence prototype-based (with regards to object, inheritance, etc), why
is it incorrect to say JavaScript is prototype-based?
Your confusion comes from comparing apples to steam trains.
Prototypes
Ok, great.
It was my intent to acknowledge some standards / submissions for OO
which inferred classes / native inheritance were needed.
Thanks for your help :)
Cheers,
Anthony.
Keryx Web wrote:
Anthony
Ziebell skrev:
Still confuses me though - if someone is
object-orientated but is in
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned
by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in
Internet Explorer.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, great.
It was my intent to acknowledge some
2008/10/28 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned
by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in
Internet Explorer.
Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun, licenced to Netscape once upon
a time as
The term Javascript is indeed owned by Sun. The implementation of
Ecmascript in IE is called JScript, not Javascript, so it doesn't
infringe the trademark (technically, but it's similar enough that
people can still easily think that IE calls it Javascript)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Brett
Brett Patterson wrote:
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is
owned by Sun?
Yes, and googling javascript trademark gives a first hit of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer.
And, no, the same
2008/10/28 liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun,
Actually a Trademark, not a Registred Trademark, apparently.
--
David liorean Andersson
***
List Guidelines:
liorean wrote:
(Netscape had originally intended to use the name LiveScript.)
Actually, it was initially released as LiveScript and renamed later.
So much backstory on that, but at this point I have no idea what's
covered by my then employment contract. Regardless, good times. :-)
--
Hassan
Brett Patterson wrote:
On a different
note, I have a problem with the JavaScript code I am writing.
If you're going to begin a new topic, you should always begin a new
thread to avoid confusing the old thread with irrelevant material and to
attract potential readers who are disinterested in
Indeed, as Alan Kay inventor of Smalltalk and OOP said
I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
C++ in mind.
cheers
L
liorean wrote:
2008/10/24 James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The language itself is NOT object-orientated, its proto-type based. It can
be
Luke,
Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is _javascript_
object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point
out that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if
_javascript_ were object-oriented, not if it has objects.
Prototype has objects,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke,
Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question Is JavaScript
object-orientated?. With that, and in closing, I would like to point out
that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if
Breton,
There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented
programming. Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and
objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does _javascript_
have classes? Can inheritance of _javascript_ occur without prototype?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Breton,
There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented
programming.
Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what
way in particular is the concept and use of objects
Hello,
Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so
no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you
to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation
of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then
I
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no
further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two
more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation
You seem to have missed my point and many references
too.
Try reading some of the references and come back with an informed
opinion, not just nit-picking at analogies I am providing to attempt to
help you understand (as I gather you would not be reading any
references I have provided, which
I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and
again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons
ago. Frankly I fail to see how any of it contradicts my position, but
they do contradict your position. I'm afraid I will have to throw up
my hands and give up
My sentiments exactly.
Regards,
Anthony.
Sent from my iPhone!
On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and
again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons
ago. Frankly I fail to see
Christian Snodgrass wrote:
I second that. They actually have a LOT more bad information than they
do good information, and what little good information they have is often
quite out of date (so, it was good information, but not anymore).
And when they _do_ add new information, they get that
Breton
Thanks for your time in explaining the intricacies and intrigues of
Object Oriented Programming.
Very enlightening. Thanks greatly
Simon
artatwork.com.au
On 24/10/2008, at 11:58 AM, Breton
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: 24 October 2008 02:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Oh, most definitely agreed. Sorry if I started an argument, I only
wanted to know
what it was. I
...
As others have said, most other OO languages implement class-based
inheritance, often as a result of their linear underpinnings. People who
are used to this approach, then go through some horrible kludges to
simulate this unnecessarily in JavaScript apps, and then complain that
the
++.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
On Behalf Of Brett Patterson
Sent: 24 October 2008 02:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Oh, most definitely agreed. Sorry
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you ask people who are truly expert with JavaScript, they will all
tell you that it _is_ Object-Oriented, not least because it is entirely
object-based: the first rule of JavaScript is: Everything is an object.
A function is an
I don't think Javascript is Object-Based, because I can just write a
function that prints instead of using an object. And even though
Javascript has objects, I think the style of writing it is more
accurately described by the prototype model.
You can print Hello, world in Ruby without
A bit off topic, but not totally: are there any free good online
tutorials (best practices and/or standards based) to help me learn to
write javascript?
Thanks,
Nancy
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think Javascript is Object-Based,
Hey Nancy,
You might can try using w3schools.com. On my delicious bookmarks page,
delicious.com/irontombraider, I do have some JavaScript pages bookmarked.
Later,
Brett
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
A bit off topic, but not totally: are there any
2008/10/24 James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The language itself is NOT object-orientated, its proto-type based. It can
be used in an OOP fashion, but this is not true Object Orientation as it is
in languages such as C++.
Two serious problems with this statement: First, the prototype system
is
2008/10/24 Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A bit off topic, but not totally: are there any free good online
tutorials (best practices and/or standards based) to help me learn to
write javascript?
Well, not a comprehensive learn-javascript-from-scratch course, but
this is a really good place
If you want to really rock the javascript, I'd go pick up pragmatics
book
http://www.pragprog.com/titles/cppsu/prototype-and-script-aculo-us
I became a rockstar at javascript after this book
On 24-Oct-08, at 3:35 PM, liorean wrote:
2008/10/24 Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A bit off
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A bit off topic, but not totally: are there any free good online
tutorials (best practices and/or standards based) to help me learn to
write javascript?
Thanks,
Nancy
This is the best javascript lesson book online
Why would you avoid w3schools? They do have some good information. So why?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Nancy Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A bit off topic, but not totally: are there any free good online
W3Schools is S 1995
On 24-Oct-08, at 6:59 PM, Brett Patterson wrote:
Why would you avoid w3schools? They do have some good information.
So why?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Nancy Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brett Patterson wrote:
Why would you avoid w3schools? They do have some good information. So why?
They have a lot of bad information - and spotting the difference is hard
if you are trying to learn from them.
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
David Dorward wrote:
Brett Patterson wrote:
Why would you avoid w3schools? They do have some good information. So why?
They have a lot of bad information - and spotting the difference is hard
if you are trying to learn from them.
I second that. They actually have a LOT more bad
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,
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
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
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
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
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 (
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? :-)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
86 matches
Mail list logo
