dcsimg
www.webdeveloper.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19

Thread: Adjusting my clock script

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by xelawho View Post
    Probably not the best source to be quoting from, but to be fair it does look like it was written in 2006.
    Actually most of that site was written back in '98... and some of it predates even that, as back then it was the reference that Nyetscape pointed to. It dating to '98 and the most major updates dating from 2001 is fine if it's accurate, since HTML 4 was finalized when? 4.01 was finalized when?

    Nothing wrong with something being old and not updated if there's no reason to do so. A lesson I wish the HTML 5-tards would learn. Change for change's sake is not improvement.

    The laugh being what MDN is now is an attempt to recreate that.

    The 'unless it generates body content' part kind-of proving my point, since adding elements to the DOM or using innerHTML is what exactly? That's right, generating body content.

    It's a good reference, though I get a laugh out of how often people seem to magically treat words like "typically" or "generally" as "must". Good for a laugh

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    localhost
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow View Post
    Since WHEN. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS NONSENSE FROM?!? If it only 'lives in the head' why does document.write even EXIST? Why does the specification for the tag itself read:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/...ml#edef-SCRIPT


    hence why a good reference like this one for the folks who can't grasp the spec:
    http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40...al/script.html

    Says:



    You keep saying things that have nothing to do with reality, the specifications, or even really helps anyone. You seem to keep saying completely unrelated bull and outright lies not supported by any facts. That's my problem.

    Script can go anywhere, loading it before </body> means less scripting needed as you don't have to wait for onload to play with elements on the DOM or add to the markup/DOM, and typically loads the page faster and makes that load render smoother. Anyone telling you otherwise is packing you so full of sand you could change your name to Sahara.

    Deal with it!
    Constantly misquoting me and persisting in ridicule only shows you up to be the egocentric big <head>ed self righteous and pompous git.

    What I said is very valid and who made you the know it all on the subject of web development? I have pointed out before, not just to yourself but in general that we have a situation where you have people like the W3C, who I understand from reading your posts you hate or you at lease have some level of contempt for them and these stuffed ****s try to justify their jobs by making changes and these people are by no means the first or last compliance standards based entity to try and enforce a change on the developer world.

    If you want to spew standards and lick compliance butt all day long, you be my guest, in fact you can also have my share as I stick my finger up to these pillocks.

    Put it another way, its taken them 25 years to actually get some order with browser vendors who are too far up their own butt holes still to create compliant browsers and for once Microsoft is sat at the same table and not in an annex several miles down the road.

    I praise HTML5 now its finally come out the closet, hopefully they will provide the much needed break away from having to use FLASH, something I personally hate because it is overly abused by sites that want to perform drive by's.

    Anyway, back on subject, JavaScript has its place in the <HEAD> of the HTML document, while the option to place some script in the document in the body or at the end (Foot) is an option, it is not the written rule of law that you have to code like that, scripts have since JavaScript was born and raised lived in the <HEAD> in fact there was a brief period when any script outside of the head would not be executed unless it was the document.write and I know this because my first foray on to the browser battle fields was with Netscape 3, I was a bit late off the starting blocks because I didn't have a PC until the Early 1990's and internet was in its infancy with crappy telephone dialup or if you could afford it ISDN which was very expensive and soon cable was able to knock down the cost of internet, my first internet access was with NTL on their 1p a minute dialup, that was back in 1996.

    Anyway, wheels of progress and all that, things have moved on but memories always live in the <HEAD> just like JavaScript has and does and you can have as many cousins in the rest of the document you like, they will never compensate for having good coding practice and the use of anonymous functions, you should read up about as they do come with a memory overhead!
    Yes, I know I'm about as subtle as being hit by a bus..(\\.\ Aug08)
    Yep... I say it like I see it, even if it is like a baseball bat in the nutz... (\\.\ Aug08)
    I want to leave this world the same way I came into it, Screaming, Incontinent & No memory!
    I laughed that hard I burst my colostomy bag... (\\.\ May03)
    Life for some is like a car accident... Mine is like a motorway pile up...

    Problems with Vista? :: Getting Cryptic wid it. :: The 'C' word! :: Whois?

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by \\.\ View Post
    they will never compensate for having good coding practice
    Which is funny since what you're advocating... isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by \\.\ View Post
    and the use of anonymous functions, you should read up about as they do come with a memory overhead!
    The same overhead as objects as anonymous functions are objects. So are you saying we shouldn't use objects either? What about globals?

    Of course, ALL JavaScript functions are objects even if you can't reference those built 'normally', which is why their locals once called are NOT automatically released since most JS engines use a monolithic stack instead of a separate heap and stack memory model. (and why it's so easy for people who don't know what they're doing to screw up and blow out the stack) -- That's why JS garbage collection is a joke. So guess what, they ALL have that same overhead. Hence why if working with something -- even a local -- that's truly massive, you should null it when complete if the page or other scripting is going to keep plodding along since simply ending the function DOESN'T DO IT?

    I'll take that "whopping" size of any vars declared inside it not being automatically released over a lack of scope protection any day. Again, why add crap to the global namespace if you don't have to? That's the beauty of them! Particularly since you can use that to NOT add properties to DOM objects or waste time adding variables to the global scope. You want to talk memory use? At BEST it's a wash.

    You seem to have had your head filled with a bunch of BS about anonymous functions; the laugh being it's been almost a decade since I last saw anyone making the same claims and it was as much a work of fiction then as it is today.

    Wait... Reg? Is that you?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    12
    Hi every One,
    Awesome dudes i really like your posts really its such a fabulous & glorious knowledge able posts for me and its increased my knowledge well ,
    again thanks for share with me such a exceptional thoughts i am to much happy after part of your brilliant company:.
    regard me:!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles