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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #16147 > unrolled thread

Illumination software creator

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

Contents

  Illumination software creator Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-25 18:44 +1000
    Re: Illumination software creator Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-09-25 11:42 +0200
    Re: Illumination software creator dann90038@gmail.com - 2012-09-25 12:12 -0700
      Re: Illumination software creator David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-26 18:58 -0700

#16147 — Illumination software creator

I downloaded Illumination Software Creator software to test how it 
builds HTML5. Alas when I checked the source of the 'hello world' 
project I built I find its DOCTYPE is for XHTML1 and it depends on both 
prototype.js and scriptaculous.js.

It makes my decision as to whether to use it or not easy.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16148

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> I downloaded Illumination Software Creator software to test how it
> builds HTML5. Alas when I checked the source of the 'hello world'
> project I built I find its DOCTYPE is for XHTML1 and it depends on both
> prototype.js and scriptaculous.js.
> 
> It makes my decision as to whether to use it or not easy.

(That is _not_ a question.)

In addition to the above, this gem should:

,-<http://lunduke.com/?page_id=3454>
|
|   Create your own software.  [Programmers need not apply.]
| 
| Illumination Software Creator allows anyone to create their own
| software applications… without writing a single line of “code”.

The rest of the statement aside, note how they put "code" in quotes, as if 
it was something that was evil or did not exist in the first place.  And of 
course, "Comments are closed."


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]

#16149

Too preliminary I'd think, to make an informed assessment of the software, just a couple of features that are a bit off current standards doesn't mean much thus far, I mean, likely you can make your own 'template' with your own DOCTYPE, or even edit the current 'hello world' template that comes with it.  Who knows, the GUI or other automation tools might be worth the hassle of using it, or not, then again, is too preliminary.

    Danny

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

#16166

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:12:57 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> Too preliminary I'd think, to make an informed assessment of the software, just a couple of features that are a bit off current standards doesn't mean much thus far, I mean, likely you can make your own 'template' with your own DOCTYPE, or even edit the current 'hello world' template that comes with it.  Who knows, the GUI or other automation tools might be worth the hassle of using it, or not, then again, is too preliminary.

As for "standards", Prototype was an awful script (hindsight is 20/20 of course), which was wildly popular at one time for doing... something. Most had no idea why they used Prototype, just as few offer any clear explanation of why they use jQuery today (something about "normalizing" browsers). Shifts in the popularity of throwaway scripts do not indicate new standards, just new brand names.

And no, it is not too early to tell. That IDE (or whatever it is) is clearly useless if its output relies on Prototype. But it would be just as useless if it included the more "modern" jQuery. It might be more popular, but certainly not due to any sort of standards. There are DOM standards and then there are scripts written by developers who apparently never bothered to read the DOM standards. :(

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web