Posts made by softmoonwebware

Originally posted by missingno:

I would differentiate between "using JS" and "relying on JS". You should never rely on JS, but you might use it for some parts. For example, if you have to sort an array to display it in your frontend, I wouldn't mind if the client manipulates the result as that only affects his side. But if you store the array back on the server side and "rely" on the data in it, I would have to validate anyways. So in this case, it doesn't make sense to do the sorting on the client side, but rather do everything on the server side and only send the results (which the client may manipulate, but I don't care as the server is still consistent).

In my case, I _rely_ on JavaScript to sort an array of HTML Elements, moving one to the top, and then to apply individual CSS classnames to each one representing different CSS z-levels. If it doesn't work, the user cannot even use the application to let the server validate the final result.

In your analysis, the data cannot even BE displayed to the user properly.

And you would produce an application that displays mixed-up data to the user, asking him _is this data OK and ready to be submitted?_
He says no, because things are out of order...but when he tries to fix it, it re-orders itself wrong again and again...until he goes to the competition's website and buys the product there.

Originally posted by missingno:

I wouldn't mind if the client manipulates the result as that only affects his side

That is a poor excuse for work done. Take some pride in what you do, and do the best quality job you know how. Even if you clean toilets for a living.

Originally posted by missingno:

I would differentiate between "using JS" and "relying on JS". You should never rely on JS, but you might use it for some parts. For example, if you have to sort an array to display it in your frontend, I wouldn't mind if the client manipulates the result as that only affects his side. But if you store the array back on the server side and "rely" on the data in it, I would have to validate anyways. So in this case, it doesn't make sense to do the sorting on the client side, but rather do everything on the server side and only send the results (which the client may manipulate, but I don't care as the server is still consistent).

Amazing how you miss the point altogether.

You are still in the era of using _area- -/area_ tags:

The server sends an image-area and a JavaScript form.
{subsection A}
The user clicks on several check/radio buttons on the form, and types in data in input fields.
The user hits submit button.
The server validates the data.
The server processes the data and sends a new modified image-area, along with the entire page, most of which has nothing to to with this image-area.
--repeat subsection A --several times-- (overworking an already overloaded server) until the user is satisfied with the state of the image.
Now the user clicks on the image-area (it is a color picker).
The data of the user-click is sent to the server, processed into a hex-color, rgb color, etc. in a computationally intense process, again overworking the server (unnecessarily, because __we can't rely on JavaScript__), and the entire web page is resent, but with another form field filled in with the user-selected color from the image-area.
And we still haven't even mentioned that somehow this process has to keep track of WHICH color-selection-input is getting filled. Remember, we cannot rely on js!
Now the user does all this over and over again, waiting patiently for the server all along..... In fact, every "live" action like this needed must be sent to the server for processing.
After half-an-hour of back-and-forth data transfer, the user finally has a complex web-form filled out (with many fields being being the selected colors mentioned above). The form is dynamic to properly represent all the needed data, so every time the form needs new fields added or fields removed, a special submit button must be pressed by the user, and the server will add or remove the proper (new or old) fields, and send the page back to the server, keeping track of every POSTed variable to properly set the form inputs to the previous user-selections.
The user finally submits the fully completed form with another separate submit button (the form has 100 or so throughout that do various different things - a real swamp of an _application_ if you can really call it that)
The server validates and processes the data, refills the form with the POSTed data, and sends a new web page including a new graphical-image (besides the color-picker image mentioned above) developed from the user-sent data.
The entire process repeats until the user is finished, an hour later.

Or we could _rely_ on JavaScript. All this could be done on the user's machine without pestering the server. In fact, we don't even need the server, a static HTML page can reside on the user's harddrive and used anywhere, anytime. We can save the final image to hard drive, or perhaps send it to a server, fully processed.
Relying on JavaScript to do the job, the user is done in 10 minutes, and the server is free to serve pages not process sub-data for every little user-interaction.

We USE JavaScript to _enhance_ the user's browsing experience on a public server-sent __web-page__ that MUST work for every poor user with a computer from the year 2000 with MSIE6 and/or JavaScript turned off. HTML5 desktop apps _rely_ on JS.

Any time an __app__ needs to do some work, the server should be minimally involved, if at all.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by softmoonwebware:

I expect:
orders===[
{count: 4, name: "Bob", item: "bar"},
{count: 7, name: "Jack", item: "bar"},
{count: 4, name: "John", item: "foo"},
{count: 12, name: "Kelly", item: "baz"},
{count: 7, name: "Sara", item: "bar"},
{count: 3, name: "Tim", item: "buz"} ]

Now I take the array and sort it further by number of items ordered, so I can fill my big$$$ orders first:
orders.sort(function(a,b) {return a.count-b.count;});

I expect the names to remain ordered when the count is the same:
orders===[
{count: 3, name: "Tim", item: "buz"},
{count: 4, name: "Bob", item: "bar"},
{count: 4, name: "John", item: "foo"},
{count: 7, name: "Jack", item: "bar"},
{count: 7, name: "Sara", item: "bar"},
{count: 12, name: "Kelly", item: "baz"} ]

In a situation where my program requires and relies on two-step ordering (perhaps two separate functions are called in order, with the choice of functions dependent on program state, to deliver a final ordering) Opera will fail.

Umm, all of that works exactly that way in Opera 12.16 for me.

Gotta admit I never tried it. But then it must be how that specific Array-arrangement ends up sorting anyway; when the Array has more or less entries, or a different starting order, will it still work? If the original example that started this post changes the original order due to lazy-quick algorithms, then it MAY change any other ordered-Array that has random entries and random ordering functions.
But if Opera 18 were just a descent browser as a user's browser goes, then the comment by the moderator would be relevant, that Opera 18 is NOT lazy. But I won't be using 18 because it doesn't even have bookmarks! How many others will still use 12.16 like me? When will HTML5 applications be truly possible? Why would Opera release a less-powerful browser that should be a BETA release for testing, not the primary download available for new users? The answers are all blowing in the wind...

The real problem is that by using Opera 10 some years ago, when it WAS the best browser, locked me into its favorites in the first place. No browser can import from Opera, and Opera 12.16 mangles the HTML export of the favorites, so not only do sub-foldlers become top-level folders, many folders just disappear and their contents mingle randomly at the top-level. And I am only guessing that no links were lost that way...

So to move to another browser becomes a real pain when you have 1000 links.

Originally posted by Pesala:

Originally posted by softmoonwebware:

Even a quick access bar would not work for my mom who has no organization skills and bookmarks her pages into one big folder.

Your mom would be better off using the Stash, which has a search field.

You've been up for too many days high on YOUR stash, twwekin on 27000 blog posts, my friend of the devil.
How is she going to import them to the _stash_ ?

Originally posted by Pesala:

There%27s" target="_blank">https://files.myopera.com/Pesala/files/Opera%2018%20Bookmark%20Importer.png]There%27s a bookmark importer on the Opera Menu, Tools submenu. If that's greyed out, then search the forum for "importer" or "bookmarks."

There is no bookmarks toolbar offered to me when I import. I just downloaded Opera 18 today.

Originally posted by Pesala:

1. It does have a bookmarks bar. Please search the forum for 100s of previous threads
2. You can select new themes and create your own
3. Tab-grouping would be nice.
4. Open new tabs in the background is weird indeed. Shift + Click or Middle-click can be used.

In the "Where are the Opera 18 bookmarks post" you give advice that does NOT work in the copy of Opera 18 that I just downloaded. I can import 1000 bookmarks to my speed-dial, but there is NO bookmarks bar offered to import to.

Originally posted by serious:

aaanyhow, we are already flaming 15+ in enough other threads, so btt (though I think that has been exhaustively discussed) or lets close the thread.

PS: OT: "relying on js" discussion: There is a distinct difference between relying on JS (as in: webapp using only an API to communicate with the server) which is not a big deal these days vs. relying on JS for validation of user input (which is very bad).

I just want to create a desktop application that never even needs a server.
But I may want to create an application that does most of its work on the browser, unloading the server, to deliver some pieces of data, secure or not. Securing data sent to the browser has nothing to do with JavaScript. I can forge a web form response with or without JavaScript. But if I want to process the data on-page (not necessarily validating it without server validation) I need JavaScript to function reliably. Again, point taken on what is and is not the real spec, and what I expected.

Originally posted by Pesala:

1. It does have a bookmarks bar. Please search the forum for 100s of previous threads
2. You can select new themes and create your own
3. Tab-grouping would be nice.
4. Open new tabs in the background is weird indeed. Shift + Click or Middle-click can be used.

I really must be blind. I still don't see any bookmarks bar options going through all menus, right clicking everywhere, etc. But I'll spend another 2 hours going through all the bellyaching posts to find the answer. Oh wait, I DID, and still don't have a clue where to find it. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the right discussion that actually gives instructions as to where to find this functionality.
And I specifically looked for a way to create my own theme, but not finding a link in Opera's menu, nor a link on the site to download theme, I felt like my time was better spent than to try to outguess the poorly conceived and designed user-interface and documentation of Opera 18.

Originally posted by Pesala:

Originally posted by softmoonwebware:

My browser won't even tell me there is something better going on.

There's not. Opera 12.16 is still the most recent version of Opera for Presto. Opera 18 is the latest version for Blink, but it is still missing most of the features that make Opera better than other browsers.

It is missing features that make Opera decent browser at all, let alone a better one.

I must be blind, dumb, or stupid cause I don't see any reference anywhere to a _Quick access bar_ on Opera 18 that I just downloaded minutes ago. Just a stash that has no way to load bookmarks into.

Why release this junk? Who doesn't use bookmarks? Even a quick access bar would not work for my mom who has no organization skills and bookmarks her pages into one big folder.

Hey! It didn't loose my bookmarks!

Why? It doesn't even HAVE bookmarks!

Absolutely useless browser Opera 18 is.

Force me to use YOUR pictures via a theme? LAME and SLACK.

No tab-control?
I want tabs to be grouped together.
I want a newly opened tab to be active (why wouldn't I, I just opened it?!?)

JUNK

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

12.16 is Presto, and will not be updated further. Opera 15 through 20 (so far) are based on Google's Blink engine, and will obviously produce the same results as Chrome. Yes, that's right - I did say 12.16 will not update to the latest stable version (18 ... 19 and 20 are still in development), you have to install it manually.

But as missingno says, since your sort does not order any element other than "three", Opera's answer is not wrong.

OHHHH so that's why I'm wondering about Opera 17 references.

Seems I even browsed "recently" to opera.com and did not find anything that said Opera 17.

how lame is that? My browser won't even tell me there is something better going on. Instead it tells me _Oh, you're up to date!_

So when I update to 17 (a link or hint from the Opera moderator would have been nice) will it delete all my favorites as updates in the past have? I lost a lot of old links that were important to me going from 10 to 11; despite repeated bug notices 11 to 12, 12.0 to 12.1, all deleted my favorites. By then I backed up regularly, and turned OFF auto-update, only update notice.

Will Opera 17 allow me to use high-definition desktop colors? Or will its interface show me yellow letters on a white background?
The bright-white screen is hard on my eyes.

reply to missingno:

points taken.

but points given, also.

At what point can we then create browser-based cross-platform applications when one JavaScript engine takes the "slack" road?

That is what modern HTML5 - ECMAScript 5 browsers are supposed to be about, yea?

So then my complaint is that Opera is just slack.

If I have an array of things my customers ordered:

orders=[
{count: 4, name: "John", item: "foo"},
{count: 7, name: "Jack", item: "bar"},
{count: 12, name: "Kelly", item: "baz"},
{count: 4, name: "Bob", item: "bar"},
{count: 3, name: "Tim", item: "buz"},
{count: 7, name: "Sara", item: "bar"} ]

now I sort them by customer name:

orders.sort(function(a,b) {
if (a.name<b.name) return -1;
if (a.name>b.name) return 1;
else return 0; });

I expect:
orders===[
{count: 4, name: "Bob", item: "bar"},
{count: 7, name: "Jack", item: "bar"},
{count: 4, name: "John", item: "foo"},
{count: 12, name: "Kelly", item: "baz"},
{count: 7, name: "Sara", item: "bar"},
{count: 3, name: "Tim", item: "buz"} ]

Now I take the array and sort it further by number of items ordered, so I can fill my big$$$ orders first:
orders.sort(function(a,b) {return a.count-b.count;});

I expect the names to remain ordered when the count is the same:
orders===[
{count: 3, name: "Tim", item: "buz"},
{count: 4, name: "Bob", item: "bar"},
{count: 4, name: "John", item: "foo"},
{count: 7, name: "Jack", item: "bar"},
{count: 7, name: "Sara", item: "bar"},
{count: 12, name: "Kelly", item: "baz"} ]

In a situation where my program requires and relies on two-step ordering (perhaps two separate functions are called in order, with the choice of functions dependent on program state, to deliver a final ordering) Opera will fail.

Originally posted by serious:

wrong ... though server side validation for user input (once it gets submitted) is never wrong

anyhow, if you want to get a known element to the end of the list without influencing the rest of the elements, doing a strange kind-of-sort like here is not the way of doing it (as sorting is sorting) - a better (in all aspects) approach would be to extract the element and append it at the end.

Well, your Bank has a web-portal. You transfer money through it. To me that is a very serious application.

I'm just writing a color-picker now, and a bitmap-graphics generator that can do things with gradients that your $500 desktop software fumbles with, if it can do it at all. Not a replacement altogether, just delivering advanced features. To me this is a serious application. Not just dancing bears across the screen to draw attention to the latest sale. If the bears skip a step here and there because the JavaScript language implementation doesn't even know how to implement a basic sort (wasn't that algorithm perfected in, like, 1957?) no one has a heartbreak except the graphic designer. My application simply doesn't work correctly. That is a real problem to me.

Sure I can loop through the entire array, find the position of the matching element, use Array.slice() to slice it out, Array.push() to append it to the end as I want. That's a lot of work for the interpreter, more characters of code to transfer, etc. Not much more, but a business owner once told me: watch your pennies, the dollars watch themselves. Coming from a background of writing Assembly Language for computers with 32K of available memory instilled a passion for writing optimized code. And in the technical definition of sort, I am sorting the one item as being _less_ than all the others, in this case. But the technical definition of sort says that when two items are deemed equal, their order should not change! In my case, I can simply identify, slice and push, but what if I was doing a more complex sort? Technical specs are there for a reason. If a JavaScript interpreter does not follow them, how can you write cross-browser code?

But now I have to worry that Array.slice() and push() and the for(){} loop and the === operator are always reliable. I mean if they skrew up something as basic as a sort, what else is untrusted?

I was telling someone my job isn't writing software, it's being a detective. OK, why doesn't this work here, but does here. Usually it's a browser layout issue: they all have their idiosyncrasies. Like I said, that is an incredibly complex task, with a constantly evolving and changing algorithm. I give them all slack (granted, MSIE takes a mile of slack, when I offer a yard, but that's another story) But sorting an Array? That should be child's play. Computer Programming 100 in high-school.

When I have to spend an hour or half a day going through 3000 lines of incredibly complex code to find MY error, when really it is the _core_ JavsScript interpreter, all I can say $%^@#!

I was using Opera as my desktop browser, as well as my developmental browser, getting my code to work with Opera first and then cross-browser testing it, usually requiring a change in the CSS. I'm thinking more and more about Chrome, now that they've merged -webkit- with Opera's code to create Blink, my current project displays correctly on Chrome under all circumstances (even MSIE was doing better), although it inherited some bugs that are more minor to my project that it didn't have before.

But the _core_ JavaScript sort function?????? PS using Opera 12.16 - the most current stable release offered automatically to my system, with auto-update enabled.

try this:
<script>
myArray=['one', 'two', 'three', 'four', 'five', 'six', 'seven'];

myArray.sort(function(a, b) {
if (a==='three') return 1;
if (b==='three') return -1;
else return 0; });

console.log(myArray.toString());
</script>

outputs:
['one', 'four', 'two', 'five', 'six', 'seven', 'three']
should be as Chrome says:
['one', 'two', 'four', 'five', 'six', 'seven', 'three']

if we change (1) to (-1) and (-1) to (1) in the sort function, the correct result occurs:
['three', 'one', 'two', 'four', 'five', 'six', 'seven']

hmmm...how can I write a serious application knowing that I cannot even trust the basic JavaScript engine? Layout engines are ridiculously complicated, so I give any browser slack on that to an extent (I still think Opera had the best until Blink leveled the field). But this is so fundamental, I must become seriously skeptical about allowing, say, my ==Bank== website to even trust the JSengine to produce the correct results. No wonder I have trouble even logging into my cPanel account with Opera...

Remember Opera 10? Ahead of the game, and it respected the high-contrast color-scheme of my Windows desktop.
With 11, it all started to go downhill...mixing desktop foreground colors with preset hardcoded background colors yielding unreadable favorites and other menus, unreadable popup boxes, etc... And from there...? Well, gotta eat here sometime; I could bellyache on this site for hours...