Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #15928 > unrolled thread

How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? justaguy <lichunshen84@gmail.com> - 2012-09-17 11:23 -0700
    Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-17 13:52 -0700
      Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:36 +1000
        Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-17 16:24 -0700
          Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-17 20:29 -0700
          Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? Adam Silver <adambsilver@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 00:48 -0700
            Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 12:43 -0700
              Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 11:09 -0700
        Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-17 20:21 -0700
        Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-18 16:49 +0200
          Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-18 12:49 -0700
        Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? "Scott Sauyet" <3103invalid@webnews.fastusenet.org> - 2012-09-19 12:29 +0000
          Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 05:44 -0700
            Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-20 02:57 +0200
              Re: Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?) David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 18:14 -0700
              Re: Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 07:26 -0700
                Re: Libraries Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-20 17:27 +0200
                  Re: Libraries Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 10:48 -0700
          Re: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest? "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 12:00 -0700

#15928 — How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?

Say, we use some library like jQuery.  What would it take?

1. Binding an HTML element to the function

2. Ajax call to db query for Data ...

3. Display retrieved data

4. It would be nice to be able to pass selection to next action/event
(even simply form submission)

Could someone who has done that elaborate with specifics?

Thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15931

On 9/17/2012 11:23 AM, justaguy wrote:
>
> Say, we use some library like jQuery.  What would it take?
>
> 1. Binding an HTML element to the function
>
> 2. Ajax call to db query for Data ...
>
> 3. Display retrieved data
>
> 4. It would be nice to be able to pass selection to next action/event
> (even simply form submission)
>

See my reply in your previous post. In the jQuery universe there a tons 
of add-ons that cover this functionality but I'd look at jQuery UI 
first. May not be the best, but most used, most tested, most tutorials, 
etc. You can either download a small'ish build for just the autocomplete 
functionality or use CDNs to pull the whole jQueryUI library and CSS 
such as:

<script 
src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8.23/jquery-ui.min.js" 
 ></script>

<link rel ="stylesheet" 
href="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8.23/themes/black-tie/jquery-ui.css" 
type="text/css">

See the Themes CDN's in 
http://blog.jqueryui.com/2012/08/jquery-ui-1-8-23/ if you want a 
different look, or play with the themeroller if you want to create your 
own: http://jqueryui.com/themeroller/

Note, you'll also need to include the standard jQuery library.

Word of warning, the full UI library is pretty massive which might be a 
small hassle to a select few - i.e. those on older mobile devices. 
Day-to-day I don't see much downside but there's no denying it's a 
product with plenty of bloat in it.

By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically) 
anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery it's only a matter 
of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice, 
unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the 
popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or, 
if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15936

On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:

 > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
 > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
 > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
 > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
 > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
 > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
 > http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery

Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the 
last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15940

On 9/17/2012 3:36 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
>
>  > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
>  > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
>  > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
>  > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
>  > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
>  > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
>  > http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>

This newsgroup is not a place to ask jQuery questions. Well, unless that 
question is "Why should I not use jQuery". That inhospitable attitude 
has been made expressly clear here.

Best case is I'm around to try to answer - which isn't often and, sadly, 
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about JS in general so it limited 
what I'll try to answer. And those that are quite knowledgeable in both 
JS and popular libraries, like Matt Kruse, seem to have given up on c.l.js.

Next best scenario is someone provides a solution but without using 
jQuery. Which isn't a bad lesson in most instances but rarely answers 
the poster's literal question. Typically a solution to the problem but 
hit or miss if the solution provides the help the OP was looking for.

Next best - question goes unanswered.

Most common - Pointed Ears replies with some babbling complaints about 
semantics and assumes the role of posting format cop for a sub-thread, 
maybe yelling to read some FAQ reference but generally providing no 
help. Then in 3 days to 3 weeks David Mark rolls around stalking posts 
related to the popular libraries and giving him an opportunity to use 
the word "neophyte" fifteen more times, and probably launches into 
complaints about jQuery's attr() function or box-model width 
calculations in quirks mode or how Dojo stole his ideas but didn't 
execute them correctly, then explaining how his abandonware library is 
the best solution however using that solution is stupid because using 
general purpose libraries is stupid - but does a find-and-replace and 
swaps the word "dubious" for "stupid" before pressing send.

Yeah... when it comes to jQuery-related questions in this newsgroup I 
stand by my previous statement. Somehow I don't think the relatively few 
regulars here want to see a bunch of jQuery questions rolling in either 
so seems like good advice, no?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15957

On Sep 17, 7:23 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 3:36 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
> > On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
>
> >  > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> >  > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> >  > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> >  > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> >  > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> >  > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> >  >http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> > last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>
> This newsgroup is not a place to ask jQuery questions. Well, unless that
> question is "Why should I not use jQuery". That inhospitable attitude
> has been made expressly clear here.

It has nothing to do with hospitality and everything to do with the BS
logic inside that script.

>
> Best case is I'm around to try to answer - which isn't often and, sadly,
> I'm not particularly knowledgeable about JS in general so it limited
> what I'll try to answer.

So the "best case" is that you might get a worthless answer from
someone who is admittedly ignorant on the subject of JS? That's the
*best* case?!

> And those that are quite knowledgeable in both
> JS and popular libraries, like Matt Kruse, seem to have given up on c.l.js.

Matt Kruse is your idea of knowledgeable because he used to defend
jQuery? You haven't read your history at all. I schooled Matt Kruse on
jQuery five years back. He then admitted (more or less) that he didn't
know what he was talking about originally. And who knows why he's not
around anymore. Maybe he was abducted by aliens or perhaps he doesn't
write JS anymore. All speculation, isn't it?

>
> Next best scenario is someone provides a solution but without using
> jQuery.

Now that would be a great scenario (for freeloaders). Unfortunately,
you can't rely on free lunches.

> Which isn't a bad lesson in most instances but rarely answers
> the poster's literal question. Typically a solution to the problem but
> hit or miss if the solution provides the help the OP was looking for.

What?

>
> Next best - question goes unanswered.

Can't figure out the progression here.

>
> Most common - Pointed Ears replies with some babbling complaints about
> semantics and assumes the role of posting format cop for a sub-thread,
> maybe yelling to read some FAQ reference but generally providing no
> help. Then in 3 days to 3 weeks David Mark rolls around stalking posts
> related to the popular libraries and giving him an opportunity to use
> the word "neophyte" fifteen more times, and probably launches into
> complaints about jQuery's attr() function or box-model width
> calculations in quirks mode or how Dojo stole his ideas but didn't
> execute them correctly, then explaining how his abandonware library is
> the best solution however using that solution is stupid because using
> general purpose libraries is stupid - but does a find-and-replace and
> swaps the word "dubious" for "stupid" before pressing send.

You really are an idiot, aren't you? You've clearly been reading my
stuff for years, but nothing has sunk in at all. You can parrot some
of the words and that's about it.

>
> Yeah... when it comes to jQuery-related questions in this newsgroup I
> stand by my previous statement. Somehow I don't think the relatively few
> regulars here want to see a bunch of jQuery questions rolling in either
> so seems like good advice, no?

No.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15989

On Sep 18, 12:23 am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 3:36 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
> > On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
>
> >  > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> >  > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> >  > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> >  > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> >  > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> >  > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> >  >http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> > last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>
> This newsgroup is not a place to ask jQuery questions. Well, unless that
> question is "Why should I not use jQuery". That inhospitable attitude
> has been made expressly clear here.
>
> Best case is I'm around to try to answer - which isn't often and, sadly,
> I'm not particularly knowledgeable about JS in general so it limited
> what I'll try to answer. And those that are quite knowledgeable in both
> JS and popular libraries, like Matt Kruse, seem to have given up on c.l.js.
>
> Next best scenario is someone provides a solution but without using
> jQuery. Which isn't a bad lesson in most instances but rarely answers
> the poster's literal question. Typically a solution to the problem but
> hit or miss if the solution provides the help the OP was looking for.
>
> Next best - question goes unanswered.
>
> Most common - Pointed Ears replies with some babbling complaints about
> semantics and assumes the role of posting format cop for a sub-thread,
> maybe yelling to read some FAQ reference but generally providing no
> help. Then in 3 days to 3 weeks David Mark rolls around stalking posts
> related to the popular libraries and giving him an opportunity to use
> the word "neophyte" fifteen more times, and probably launches into
> complaints about jQuery's attr() function or box-model width
> calculations in quirks mode or how Dojo stole his ideas but didn't
> execute them correctly, then explaining how his abandonware library is
> the best solution however using that solution is stupid because using
> general purpose libraries is stupid - but does a find-and-replace and
> swaps the word "dubious" for "stupid" before pressing send.
>
> Yeah... when it comes to jQuery-related questions in this newsgroup I
> stand by my previous statement. Somehow I don't think the relatively few
> regulars here want to see a bunch of jQuery questions rolling in either
> so seems like good advice, no?

It seems that you miss all the important information provided by
Thomas and David. It is worth giving their advice some thought and
action. We are actually rather fortunate to have them answer
questions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16011

On 9/19/2012 12:48 AM, Adam Silver wrote:

> It seems that you miss all the important information provided by
> Thomas and David. It is worth giving their advice some thought and
> action. We are actually rather fortunate to have them answer
> questions.
>

This sort of pandering and complicity is among the reasons for the 
general lack of activity in this newsgroup.

Pointed Ears sometimes provides answers and discussion so long as it can 
be interspersed with ridicule. He's also very adept at not providing 
value but still including the ridicule. I think labeling his 
participation as "fortunate" might be  generous.

Anything of merit re: discussion of JS to David Mark's name is contained 
on a couple pages on his site. His community interaction, here and 
elsewhere, consists almost entirely of retreaded arguments in some 
bizarre javascript-library war, a war in which he's the only participant 
(unless someone like me finally takes the bait and has a little fun 
watching what happens). I don't see any particular useful value in what 
you seem to admire on this front, but to each his own.

Unsolicited advice: you're developing what looks to be an interesting 
project. Probably overkill for my own needs but I can understand the 
appeal for more dedicated JS developers. That said, the more David 
hijacks it as ammo for his crusade, the less likelihood it will gain 
traction in the developer community.

https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/240371150419529729
https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/243477300178464768
https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/245257556388368384

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16059

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:42:59 PM UTC-4, S.T. wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 12:48 AM, Adam Silver wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > It seems that you miss all the important information provided by
> 
> > Thomas and David. It is worth giving their advice some thought and
> 
> > action. We are actually rather fortunate to have them answer
> 
> > questions.
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of pandering and complicity is among the reasons for the 
> 
> general lack of activity in this newsgroup.

As usual, your primary mission here is to insult the group. What is that in aid of?

> 
> 
> 
> Pointed Ears sometimes provides answers and discussion so long as it can 
> 
> be interspersed with ridicule. He's also very adept at not providing 
> 
> value but still including the ridicule. I think labeling his 
> 
> participation as "fortunate" might be  generous.

And your "participation" is...? :)

> 
> 
> 
> Anything of merit re: discussion of JS to David Mark's name is contained 
> 
> on a couple pages on his site. His community interaction, here and 
> 
> elsewhere, consists almost entirely of retreaded arguments in some 
> 
> bizarre javascript-library war, a war in which he's the only participant 
> 
> (unless someone like me finally takes the bait and has a little fun 
> 
> watching what happens). I don't see any particular useful value in what 
> 
> you seem to admire on this front, but to each his own.

And your other mission is to spew nonsense about me? What do you get out of that? Oh wait, I see; you are having a "little fun" (very little I would think). Try to find a life. ;)

> 
> 
> 
> Unsolicited advice: you're developing what looks to be an interesting 
> 
> project. Probably overkill for my own needs but I can understand the 
> 
> appeal for more dedicated JS developers. That said, the more David 
> 
> hijacks it as ammo for his crusade, the less likelihood it will gain 
> 
> traction in the developer community.

You truly are clueless. Referring to the "Jessie" project, right? :)

> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/240371150419529729
> 
> https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/243477300178464768
> 
> https://twitter.com/Cinsoft/status/245257556388368384

Why do you seem to follow my every move online if you don't find posts useful? Do you get up every morning and say: today I will read posts by David Mark? And then post anonymously in groups where my opinions (for lack of a better word) are clearly not welcome? You really need a life. ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15956

On Sep 17, 6:36 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
>
>  > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
>  > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
>  > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
>  > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
>  > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
>  > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
>  >http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>

He's the prototypical anonymous idiot. Always preaching jQuery,
despite every effort to explain that it isn't in his (or anyone
else's) best interest. Thick as a brick.

The idea that asking JS questions on SO or Reddit is preferable is
invalid unless one is seeking to avoid reality (AKA "negativity"). The
deluded prefer fantasy (AKA "positivity"). :(

LOL that he's a fan of Matt Kruse. I guess he missed the part where
that guy finally (sort of) admitted that he goofed about jQuery. In a
way, he was "S.T."'s predecessor (though certainly had better
credentials than this anonymous buffoon).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15969

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
> > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> > http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
> 
> Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.

That is what pseudo-anonymous address-munging script-kiddies usually do.
So I for one am not surprised.


PointedEars
-- 
Sometimes, what you learn is wrong. If those wrong ideas are close to the 
root of the knowledge tree you build on a particular subject, pruning the 
bad branches can sometimes cause the whole tree to collapse.
  -- Mike Duffy in cljs, <news:Xns9FB6521286DB8invalidcom@94.75.214.39>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15973

On Sep 18, 10:49 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
> > On 18/09/2012 6:52 AM, S.T. wrote:
> > > By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> > > anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> > > of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> > > unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> > > popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> > > if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> > >http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> > last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>
> That is what pseudo-anonymous address-munging script-kiddies usually do.
> So I for one am not surprised.
>

Quite. Then there's the gross oversimplification that the only two
paths are "using one of the popular libraries" or coding "from
scratch" and the idea that jQuery UI will only inconvenience a few
users of "older" mobile devices. Seems like anything more than two
pigeonholes is too much for them to sort.

They all say basically the same thing, which they get from reading the
output of bloggers/fans of the "popular" libraries. Small wonder such
posters wish to remain anonymous. The bigger mystery is why they
bother to post such nonsense here (of all places). Smacks of trolling,
which they constantly rail against. :(

It's almost as if they don't understand *anything*. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15994

Andrew Poulos wrote:
> S.T. wrote:
> 
>> By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
>> anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
>> of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
>> unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
>> popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
>> if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
> 
> Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.

I almost agree.  This is overblown and less than helpful.  But even the FAQ 
does point people interested in the popular libraries to the libraries' 
sites.  It's clear that for the most part questions about how to use these 
libraries are not well-received on comp.lang.javascript.  A short sentence 
that pointed that out would have been fine.  This plaintive cry is too much.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15996

On Sep 19, 8:29 am, "Scott Sauyet"
<3103inva...@webnews.fastusenet.org> wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
> > S.T. wrote:
>
> >> By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> >> anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> >> of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> >> unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> >> popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> >> if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> >>http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off the
> > last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>
> I almost agree.  This is overblown and less than helpful.  But even the FAQ
> does point people interested in the popular libraries to the libraries'
> sites.  It's clear that for the most part questions about how to use these
> libraries are not well-received on comp.lang.javascript.

And why should they be? The newsgroup is about the JS language and
browser scripting in general. How to use method "xyz" of popular
library "abc" is beyond the scope of this forum (and generally a waste
of time as they change them every other week).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16028 — Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?)

David Mark wrote:

> "Scott Sauyet" wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> > S.T. wrote:
>> >> By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
>> >> anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
>> >> of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
>> >> unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
>> >> popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
>> >> if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
>> >> http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>> > 
>> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off
>> > the last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>>
>> I almost agree.  This is overblown and less than helpful.  But even the
>> FAQ does point people interested in the popular libraries to the
>> libraries' sites.  It's clear that for the most part questions about how
>> to use these libraries are not well-received on comp.lang.javascript.
> 
> And why should they be? The newsgroup is about the JS language and
> browser scripting in general. How to use method "xyz" of popular
> library "abc" is beyond the scope of this forum (and generally a waste
> of time as they change them every other week).

I have come to question that approach; not only because I happen to be a 
library author myself.  It is not typical for other programming newsgroups.  
There is no logical reason why libraries written in ECMAScript 
implementations – whereas I would like to define a "library" as a set of 
reusable features in one or more external resources – should not be 
discussed here, but elsewhere, often in substandard communication media.

In fact, I welcome discussions about those libraries here, in this newsgroup 
where the people with arguably the most in-depth knowledge about the 
languages and related APIs are subscribed to.  If done with reason, this way 
the flaws of a library and the benefits of one library over another in a 
specific area can be highlighted, and – in time – overall knowledge and code 
quality can be improved.

What is not acceptable, though, is asking a question without having tried to 
identify and solve the underlying problem first.  And it should not be at 
all surprising that such teenage attempts at wasting the free time of others 
are met with scorn.


PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16029 — Re: Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?)

On Sep 19, 9:01 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > "Scott Sauyet" wrote:
> >> Andrew Poulos wrote:
> >> > S.T. wrote:
> >> >> By the way, this newsgroup is exceptionally (read: fanatically)
> >> >> anti-jQuery and it's siblings. By referencing jQuery its only a matter
> >> >> of time until the loons emerge. If the links I provided don't suffice,
> >> >> unless you want to code this up from scratch without using one of the
> >> >> popular libraries you'll be better served asking on Stack Overflow or,
> >> >> if you would prefer a bit more casual format, maybe on Reddit:
> >> >>http://www.reddit.com/r/jquery
>
> >> > Its a pretty sad way to defend your support of jq. If you'd left off
> >> > the last paragraph I would've thought your post well considered.
>
> >> I almost agree.  This is overblown and less than helpful.  But even the
> >> FAQ does point people interested in the popular libraries to the
> >> libraries' sites.  It's clear that for the most part questions about how
> >> to use these libraries are not well-received on comp.lang.javascript.
>
> > And why should they be? The newsgroup is about the JS language and
> > browser scripting in general. How to use method "xyz" of popular
> > library "abc" is beyond the scope of this forum (and generally a waste
> > of time as they change them every other week).
>
> I have come to question that approach; not only because I happen to be a
> library author myself.  It is not typical for other programming newsgroups.
> There is no logical reason why libraries written in ECMAScript
> implementations – whereas I would like to define a "library" as a set of
> reusable features in one or more external resources – should not be
> discussed here, but elsewhere, often in substandard communication media.

Sure they can be (and often are) discussed. I was just referring to
posted questions with code that calls library methods, where any
informed answer would require digging up the library code in question.
As you know, JS libraries are often a huge mess to wade through.

>
> In fact, I welcome discussions about those libraries here, in this newsgroup
> where the people with arguably the most in-depth knowledge about the
> languages and related APIs are subscribed to.  If done with reason, this way
> the flaws of a library and the benefits of one library over another in a
> specific area can be highlighted, and – in time – overall knowledge and code
> quality can be improved.

Yes, but I've found that most of the "popular" GP libraries are used
by designers (e.g. ad agency hacks) who would not frequent (and likely
have never heard of) this group. Scripts with more narrow contexts are
better candidates for discussion here.

>
> What is not acceptable, though, is asking a question without having tried to
> identify and solve the underlying problem first.  And it should not be at
> all surprising that such teenage attempts at wasting the free time of others
> are met with scorn.

Certainly I agree, yet we've both seen an endless parade of such
"surprises" play out over the years. Typically the poster gets upset
over the denial of a free lunch, hurls insults at the entire group and
then scuttles off to Fantasyland (e.g. jQuery forums, blogs, etc.)
Their rallying cry regarding technical newsgroups (and this one in
particular) is "not helpful!" :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16036 — Re: Libraries (was: How difficult would it be to create simple autosuggest?)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[RE: Javascript Libraries, of all stripes, from jQuery to JSX]

> In fact, I welcome discussions about those libraries here, in this newsgroup
> where the people with arguably the most in-depth knowledge about the
> languages and related APIs are subscribed to.  If done with reason, this way
> the flaws of a library and the benefits of one library over another in a
> specific area can be highlighted, and – in time – overall knowledge and code
> quality can be improved.

I agree that discussions of the libraries should be considered on-
topic.  But I would not want this to turn the group into the
equivalent of the Javascript tag on StackOverflow, where it seems that
90%+ of the questions are not about Javascript in general, but are
specific to one library, toolkit, framework, or some such.  People
with basic questions about how to use MooTools should still ask first
on the MooTools user group.

In my mind, comp.lang.javascript would be an entirely appropriate
place to discuss the difference in API design between MooTools and APE
or implementation differences between vxJS and  JSX.  It would also be
a useful place to discuss the various module loading proposals flying
around or the different Promises APIs, and how they are implemented in
libraries.  Even David Mark's tedious diatribes about jQuery are
appropriate, at least when focused on the technical (de-)merits of the
library.

But this is not the main support forum for those libraries.  Another
recent thread, titled "How to create timelapse animation consisting of
several or more images?", with content that starts "Is there any
tutorials about this?  Does jQuery ui have a plug-in built already to
do this?" is inappropriate for several reasons, among which is that if
the poster wants to know how to do something like this with jQuery,
the appropriate place to ask is in a jQuery-focused group.

That line is important.  This group should not be the first stop for
determining how to use one of these libraries, not even JSX,
MyLibrary, APE, vxJS, or others written by regulars.  But more
detailed discussions of the libraries should be welcomed.  Would that
be a reasonable stance?  And I certainly would not back down from the
FAQ's statement that no javascript libraries are endorsed by this
group.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16037 — Re: Libraries

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> But this is not the main support forum for those libraries.  Another
> recent thread, titled "How to create timelapse animation consisting of
> several or more images?", with content that starts "Is there any
> tutorials about this?  Does jQuery ui have a plug-in built already to
> do this?" is inappropriate for several reasons, among which is that if
> the poster wants to know how to do something like this with jQuery,
> the appropriate place to ask is in a jQuery-focused group.

The only problem I have with this is that (AFAIK) there is no jQuery-focused 
*newsgroup* on *Usenet*; there is (only?) a jQuery-focused *Google* group, 
which is a different animal.
 
> That line is important.  This group should not be the first stop for
> determining how to use one of these libraries, not even JSX,
> MyLibrary, APE, vxJS, or others written by regulars.  But more
> detailed discussions of the libraries should be welcomed.  Would that
> be a reasonable stance?

Given that the authors of the mentioned libraries are regulars here, I do 
not see why how to use them should not be discussed here.  Certainly you do 
not expect each of them to build their own support chain?

I second your notion about the newsgroup not being the first stop, though.  
There are source code comments, there may be an API documentation, even a 
manual, and certainly there is Web search.  But if there is raising 
interest, it becomes impractical for an author to answer all the same 
questions repeatedly via private e-mail, so avoiding that via a public forum 
like this newsgroup appears not to be such a bad idea.  And if the library 
is to improve, would it not be better if was made known to the public and 
stood public scrutiny?  (You may have noticed that I am following this 
approach with JSX.)

I would like to compare this approach to my (arguably short) experience with 
de.comp.text.tex.  There is a LaTeX document class optimized for Central-
European formats (basically), KOMA-Script by Markus Kohm (which I had the 
privilege to use in my thesis).  Occasionally, when there is a problem with 
using KOMA-Script, Markus – who apparently has the same mindset regarding 
*luser* support that I do, so he's not a suspect ;-) – jumps in there and 
can quickly point out the culprit or gets ideas on how to improve KOMA-
Script.  And apparently nobody there finds anything wrong with that.  It is 
healthy and it is sort of expected, with no obligations to anyone.

IMHO, the problems really only begin when support for free is perceived as 
an obligation.

> And I certainly would not back down from the FAQ's statement that no
> javascript libraries are endorsed by this group.

The FAQ really is a different can of worms altogether.  But at this point, 
the statement in the FAQ remains somewhat correct, if imprecise: It should 
state instead that no *particular* library is endorsed by *all* *regular* 
contributors to the newsgroup.  In that sense, I would suggest to list and 
link to the libraries and frameworks written by regulars (you mentioned 
them) as well as other ones, which helps people to make an *informed* 
decision.


PointedEars
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16053 — Re: Libraries

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> But this is not the main support forum for those libraries.  Another
>> recent thread, titled "How to create timelapse animation consisting of
>> several or more images?", with content that starts "Is there any
>> tutorials about this?  Does jQuery ui have a plug-in built already to
>> do this?" is inappropriate for several reasons, among which is that if
>> the poster wants to know how to do something like this with jQuery,
>> the appropriate place to ask is in a jQuery-focused group.
>
> The only problem I have with this is that (AFAIK) there is no jQuery-focused
> *newsgroup* on *Usenet*;

I'm not particularly concerned by how their help community is
organized, whether as a USENET group, a mailing list, an IRC channel,
a web forum, a hybrid like Google Groups, or something else.  The main
point is that most libraries have some preferred mechanism for
requesting and providing help.  I suppose those that don't have
another channel might well find their best home here.

> there is (only?) a jQuery-focused *Google* group, which is a different animal.

I think they abandoned that a few years ago in favor of another web
forum solution.


>> That line is important.  This group should not be the first stop for
>> determining how to use one of these libraries, not even JSX,
>> MyLibrary, APE, vxJS, or others written by regulars.  But more
>> detailed discussions of the libraries should be welcomed.  Would that
>> be a reasonable stance?
>
> Given that the authors of the mentioned libraries are regulars here, I do
> not see why how to use them should not be discussed here.  Certainly you do
> not expect each of them to build their own support chain?

Perhaps not, not if they don't gain a wide user base.  But if they
develop a sizable user community, I'd be afraid they could overwhelm a
group like this.  If they start to grow, I'd prefer to gently suggest
that they find a separate support mechanism.

> I second your notion about the newsgroup not being the first stop, though.
> There are source code comments, there may be an API documentation, even a
> manual, and certainly there is Web search.  But if there is raising
> interest, it becomes impractical for an author to answer all the same
> questions repeatedly via private e-mail, so avoiding that via a public forum
> like this newsgroup appears not to be such a bad idea.  And if the library
> is to improve, would it not be better if was made known to the public and
> stood public scrutiny?  (You may have noticed that I am following this
> approach with JSX.)

Yes, and I appreciate it.  I'm not sure I would if there were forty
posts daily asking how to use some JSX widget, though!

> I would like to compare this approach to my (arguably short) experience with
> de.comp.text.tex.  There is a LaTeX document class optimized for Central-
> European formats (basically), KOMA-Script by Markus Kohm (which I had the
> privilege to use in my thesis).  Occasionally, when there is a problem with
> using KOMA-Script, Markus – who apparently has the same mindset regarding
> *luser* support that I do, so he's not a suspect ;-) – jumps in there and
> can quickly point out the culprit or gets ideas on how to improve KOMA-
> Script.  And apparently nobody there finds anything wrong with that.  It is
> healthy and it is sort of expected, with no obligations to anyone.
>
> IMHO, the problems really only begin when support for free is perceived as
> an obligation.

I think usage as described would be entirely appropriate.

>> And I certainly would not back down from the FAQ's statement that no
>> javascript libraries are endorsed by this group.
>
> The FAQ really is a different can of worms altogether.  But at this point,
> the statement in the FAQ remains somewhat correct, if imprecise: It should
> state instead that no *particular* library is endorsed by *all* *regular*
> contributors to the newsgroup.  In that sense, I would suggest to list and
> link to the libraries and frameworks written by regulars (you mentioned
> them) as well as other ones, which helps people to make an *informed*
> decision.

Keeping such a list up-to-date (for those not written by regulars)
might be a challenge.  But if we could do so, I think it would be
worth doing.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16008

On 9/19/2012 5:29 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
>
> A short sentence
> that pointed that out would have been fine.  This plaintive cry is too much.
>

Point taken.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web