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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #12606 > unrolled thread

Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine

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

Contents

  Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine R Hall <richkhall@gmail.com> - 2012-03-11 23:50 -0700
    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-12 07:59 +0000
    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-13 00:03 +0100
      Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 11:05 +0000
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-13 12:37 +0100
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-14 16:24 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-16 01:55 +0100
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 09:03 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 10:53 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 12:36 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 19:07 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 22:43 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 06:09 -0700
                Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 12:53 -0700
                Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 13:30 -0700
                  Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 15:42 -0700
                    Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 17:32 -0700
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 14:04 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-16 01:40 +0100
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-15 14:20 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 17:28 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-16 10:53 -0700
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-17 17:00 +0000
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-17 12:05 +0100
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-17 10:24 -0700
        Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-03-16 19:39 -0600
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 18:54 -0700
          Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-17 16:53 +0000
            Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-03-17 13:10 -0600
              Re: Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-18 13:06 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#12606 — Javascript directly calling the Google App Engine

I'm looking for a way to use my javascript code to directly interface with the google app engine and with the datastore.

I've already used the GWT/GAE Java SDK in Eclipse with varying levels of success, but I'm looking for a way to leverage the benefits of GAE in the cloud server with the graphical UI strengths of writing javascript directly for the client.  

Maybe I've missed something obvious, or something that is out there does it, but I've been searching for awhile now, and it just seems like Google is dancing around any direct client access to their App Engine and cloud datastore.  Strange, considering the GAE/GWT toolkits eventually need to convert python and java source into javascript.  

I've pretty much exhausted my leads so far - Any direction is greatly appreciated.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12607

R Hall wrote on 12 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I'm looking for a way to use my javascript code to directly interface
> with the google app engine and with the datastore. 

If you mean javascript in webbrowser, that would be a serious security 
infringement.

> I've already used the GWT/GAE Java SDK in Eclipse with varying levels
> of success, but I'm looking for a way to leverage the benefits of GAE
> in the cloud server with the graphical UI strengths of writing
> javascript directly for the client.  

I don't know what you mean by cloud-server, but what is wrong with the 
XMLHttpRequest apis?

> Maybe I've missed something obvious, or something that is out there
> does it, but I've been searching for awhile now, and it just seems
> like Google is dancing around any direct client access to their App
> Engine and cloud datastore.  Strange, considering the GAE/GWT toolkits
> eventually need to convert python and java source into javascript.  
> 
> I've pretty much exhausted my leads so far - Any direction is greatly
> appreciated. 

XMLHttpRequest


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#12616

R Hall wrote:

> I'm looking for a way to use my javascript code to directly interface with
> the google app engine and with the datastore.

There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
 
> I've already used the GWT/GAE Java SDK in Eclipse with varying levels of
> success, but I'm looking for a way to leverage the benefits of GAE in the
> cloud server with the graphical UI strengths of writing javascript
> directly for the client.
> […]
> I've pretty much exhausted my leads so far - Any direction is greatly
> appreciated.

You should try a Google support forum.  Not only they are more likely to 
know more about Google software, they are also more lenient about your 
129(+) characters wide postings (probably because they do not see that 
problem either) than the average Usenet user.

If, on the other hand, you need help with a specific piece of script code, 
you are more than welcome to post it here, provided you obey the forms.

<http://jibbering.com/faq/> (try to ignore the "javascript" part)


PointedEars
-- 
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).

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

#12641

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

  <snip>
>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
  <snip>

Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#12642

John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>   <snip>
>>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>   <snip>
>
> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?

| JavaScript
|    Some parts of the language described by this specification only
|    support JavaScript as the underlying scripting language. [ECMA262]
|
|    Note: The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA262, rather than
|    the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more
|    widely known. Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript
|    in this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most
|    commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type
|    according to RFC 4329. [RFC4329]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#dependencies>

That calls for a drink.

-- 
λ

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

#12704

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 12:37:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Eric Bednarz
wrote:
>John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>>   <snip>
>>>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>>   <snip>
>>
>> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>
>| JavaScript
>|    Some parts of the language described by this specification only
>|    support JavaScript as the underlying scripting language. [ECMA262]
>|
>|    Note: The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA262, rather than
>|    the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more
>|    widely known. Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript
>|    in this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most
>|    commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type
>|    according to RFC 4329. [RFC4329]
><http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#dependencies>
  <snip>

That comes from a draft HTML 5 specification. The authors are not famous
for being far-sighted and sensible. One day they'll want to say that
something is not implemented in JavaScript, then they'll tie themselves
in knots trying to say what that means :-(

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#12780

John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Eric Bednarz wrote:

>>| JavaScript
>>|    Some parts of the language described by this specification only
>>|    support JavaScript as the underlying scripting language. [ECMA262]
>>|
>>|    Note: The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA262, rather than
>>|    the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more
>>|    widely known. Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript
>>|    in this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most
>>|    commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type
>>|    according to RFC 4329. [RFC4329]
>><http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#dependencies>
>   <snip>
>
> That comes from a draft HTML 5 specification.

Surprisingly I noticed that myself. :-)

> The authors are not famous
> for being far-sighted and sensible. One day they'll want to say that
> something is not implemented in JavaScript, then they'll tie themselves
> in knots trying to say what that means :-(

Oh well, I'm reminded of HTML < 5 being supposed to be an application of
SGML. That never meant anything you could tie a knot around either, but
Thomas - of all people, the irony - never understood that and still
lived happily ever after. And so do all the mighty JavaScript Ninjas.

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

#12646

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:05:29 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>  <snip>
>>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>  <snip>
>
>Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?

     Tom de Neef apparently does.  Here is a post of mine from
2011-12-01 in reply to him regarding Mr. Lahn:

***** Start of Quoted Post *****
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:34:13 +0100, "Tom de Neef" <tdeneef@qolor.nl>
wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@ocis.net>
>>
>>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
>
>You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the 
>start.
>I suggest you focus on content rather than style.

     No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
in a readable, helpful style.  Of those, it is almost certain that
some will post correct information.  Because their style is readable,
it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.

     Or I could try deciphering posts written by people who are
antagonistic or have axes to grind.

     No, I think I will continue with the first way.

     Thank you to all of you who have posted helpfully.  I like your
style!

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
***** End of Quoted Post *****

     I still appreciate helpful posters, and I still have Mr. Lahn in
my killfile.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12651

On Mar 13, 12:03 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:05:29 +0000, John G Harris
>
> <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
> >'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> >  <snip>
> >>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
> >  <snip>
>
> >Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>
>      Tom de Neef apparently does.  Here is a post of mine from
> 2011-12-01 in reply to him regarding Mr. Lahn:
>
> ***** Start of Quoted Post *****
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:34:13 +0100, "Tom de Neef" <tden...@qolor.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@ocis.net>
>
> >>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
>
> >You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the
> >start.
> >I suggest you focus on content rather than style.
>
>      No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
> in a readable, helpful style.

There's a lot of that going around. Hint: no amount of "helpful style"
can turn bad advice into good.

> Of those, it is almost certain that
> some will post correct information.

What makes you so sure? I know of plenty of Usenet participants who
write long, flowery articles that mean nothing.

> Because their style is readable,
> it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.

No shot for a JS beginner to make that scheme work. Certainly not in
here. ;)

>
>      Or I could try deciphering posts written by people who are
> antagonistic or have axes to grind.

You don't know who has an axe to grind with whom as you haven't been
here long enough. This group is like a decades-old soap opera.

>
>      No, I think I will continue with the first way.
>
>      Thank you to all of you who have posted helpfully.  I like your
> style!

Gee, thanks. I'll go ahead and assume you mean me. :)

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
> ***** End of Quoted Post *****
>
>      I still appreciate helpful posters, and I still have Mr. Lahn in
> my killfile.

That was dumb and so was announcing it. Such announcements are seen as
really lame, playing-the-victim behavior (see Scott Sauyet) Nobody's
ever actually "killed" me here (at least nobody in their right mind),
but lamers love to announce they have. Somehow they think that will
enhance their reputation. :)

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

#12654

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:53:48 -0700 (PDT), David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 13, 12:03 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:05:29 +0000, John G Harris
>>
>> <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
>> >'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> >  <snip>
>> >>There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>> >  <snip>
>>
>> >Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>>
>>      Tom de Neef apparently does.  Here is a post of mine from
>> 2011-12-01 in reply to him regarding Mr. Lahn:
>>
>> ***** Start of Quoted Post *****
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:34:13 +0100, "Tom de Neef" <tden...@qolor.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@ocis.net>
>>
>> >>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
>>
>> >You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the
>> >start.
>> >I suggest you focus on content rather than style.
>>
>>      No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
>> in a readable, helpful style.
>
>There's a lot of that going around. Hint: no amount of "helpful style"
>can turn bad advice into good.

     Do you really think that I do not know that?  If a post is
readable, it is a lot easier to determine correctness and usefulness.
I have read posts where I could not tell what the poster was trying to
say.  It might have been technically correct, but if I can not
understand it, it is a waste.

>> Of those, it is almost certain that
>> some will post correct information.
>
>What makes you so sure? I know of plenty of Usenet participants who
>write long, flowery articles that mean nothing.

     Note that I wrote "readable, helpful style".  Long and flowery
does not cut it.

>> Because their style is readable,
>> it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.
>
>No shot for a JS beginner to make that scheme work. Certainly not in
>here. ;)

     It is easier than trying to untangle an obtuse post.

>>      Or I could try deciphering posts written by people who are
>> antagonistic or have axes to grind.
>
>You don't know who has an axe to grind with whom as you haven't been
>here long enough. This group is like a decades-old soap opera.

     Actually, having gone through the retained posts when I first
subscribed to this newsgroup, I do have a fairly good idea.

>>      No, I think I will continue with the first way.
>>
>>      Thank you to all of you who have posted helpfully.  I like your
>> style!
>
>Gee, thanks. I'll go ahead and assume you mean me. :)

     Fine by me.

>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gene Wirchenko
>> ***** End of Quoted Post *****
>>
>>      I still appreciate helpful posters, and I still have Mr. Lahn in
>> my killfile.
>
>That was dumb and so was announcing it. Such announcements are seen as
>really lame, playing-the-victim behavior (see Scott Sauyet) Nobody's
>ever actually "killed" me here (at least nobody in their right mind),
>but lamers love to announce they have. Somehow they think that will
>enhance their reputation. :)

     Not particularly.  It is one way of stating that someone's
behaviour is not acceptable.  It is not as if no one else has ever
stated it.  Note that I do not killfile and declare it; I only mention
it if it comes up in newsgroup discussion.

     I simply ignore and forget.  Since I killfile mostly by marking
read and I can see replies, the posts are available for me to check. I
have rarely found that once I have killfiled someone that later posts
of his were worth reading.  There might be the occasional one, but I
am not so desperate that I will go digging through a lot of trash to
find such.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12674

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> John G Harris  wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>>> There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>
>> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>
> Tom de Neef apparently does.  Here is a post of mine from
> 2011-12-01 in reply to him regarding Mr. Lahn:
>
> "Tom de Neef" wrote:
>|
>|> "Gene Wirchenko" wrote:
>|
>|>>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
>|
>|> You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the
>|> start.
>|> I suggest you focus on content rather than style.
>
>      No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
> in a readable, helpful style.  Of those, it is almost certain that
> some will post correct information.  Because their style is readable,
> it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.

I'm afraid you're participating in a group where abrasive styles and
useful content intermingle quite often.  You can, of course, choose to
ignore those whose style so offends you.  But I'd suggest that is a
mistake here.  Thomas Lahn has much to say that moves the conversation
forward.  He has a lot to offer.  But his style is extremely pedantic,
often condescending, and generally unfriendly.  Nonetheless, I've
learned a lot from him.  I just generally ignore his more snide
comments ("There is no Javascript" and the like.)


> I still appreciate helpful posters, and I still have Mr. Lahn in
> my killfile.

I try to be helpful, and hope that sometimes I achieve it.  But
remember that this is not a help forum.  This is a discussion group.
Many people respond only to that which piques their interest, and
there is nothing wrong with that.

It's up to you about the kill-file.  I've only kill-filed one person
in my two and a half years participating here, and even so, I still
read his posts; I've simply chosen (with his expressed approval) to
stop responding to him.  This is another person who can sometimes post
useful content, but who is often just a blowhard.  Thomas has much
more useful material to add, and I'd be loathe to kill-file him.

  -- Scott

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

#12690

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:07:04 -0700 (PDT), Scott Sauyet
<scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>I'm afraid you're participating in a group where abrasive styles and
>useful content intermingle quite often.  You can, of course, choose to
>ignore those whose style so offends you.  But I'd suggest that is a
>mistake here.  Thomas Lahn has much to say that moves the conversation
>forward.  He has a lot to offer.  But his style is extremely pedantic,
>often condescending, and generally unfriendly.  Nonetheless, I've
>learned a lot from him.  I just generally ignore his more snide
>comments ("There is no Javascript" and the like.)

     I am an experienced USENET denizen and can handle myself in
newsgroups.  My decision comes from his *repeated* bad manners with no
sign of improvement.  None of pedanticism, condescension, and
unfriendliness help.  His communication is a minefield.  I prefer to
avoid minefields.

[snip]

>I try to be helpful, and hope that sometimes I achieve it.  But
>remember that this is not a help forum.  This is a discussion group.

     I know.

>Many people respond only to that which piques their interest, and
>there is nothing wrong with that.

     As long as, in so doing, they do not derail the thread, I have no
problem with that.

>It's up to you about the kill-file.  I've only kill-filed one person
>in my two and a half years participating here, and even so, I still
>read his posts; I've simply chosen (with his expressed approval) to
>stop responding to him.  This is another person who can sometimes post
>useful content, but who is often just a blowhard.  Thomas has much
>more useful material to add, and I'd be loathe to kill-file him.

     Aside from spammers and one longtime USENET kook, Mr. Lahn is the
only one I have killfiled on clj.  I see that he has potential to be
helpful, but that is just not good enough, and there are enough
basically friendly, helpful sorts here that I need dig into the dregs.
I hope others find my posts helpful.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12789

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> It's up to you about the kill-file.  I've only kill-filed one person
>> in my two and a half years participating here, and even so, I still
>> read his posts; I've simply chosen (with his expressed approval) to
>> stop responding to him.  This is another person who can sometimes post
>> useful content, but who is often just a blowhard.  Thomas has much
>> more useful material to add, and I'd be loathe to kill-file him.
>
>      Aside from spammers and one longtime USENET kook, Mr. Lahn is the
> only one I have killfiled on clj.  I see that he has potential to be
> helpful, but that is just not good enough, and there are enough
> basically friendly, helpful sorts here that I need dig into the dregs.
> I hope others find my posts helpful.

As I said, it's entirely up to you.  I'm very glad of your
participation in this group.  You've been opening up many interesting
threads, several of which I've joined.  But Thomas has been around a
lot longer, and has often had interesting things to say.

My one kill-file has posted often here, and he's recently returned
from a hiatus.  He often seems to try to goad me into responding,
which I sometimes do, but only indirectly.  I only 'plonk'ed him
nearly six months after he did so to me.  But I've stopped responding
to him, except through oblique channels, whereas he keeps making
comments on my posts, asking me direct questions, funny behavior from
someone who 'plonk'ed me more than two years ago.  The difference
between him and Thomas is that Thomas' behavior, while it can be
grating, is within normal USENET bounds; this other fellow flames
everyone just out of habit, and make outrageous conceited claims at
every turn.  His latest foray into the group seems genuinely helpful,
but I'd be surprised if it takes long to degrade back into a series of
insults and abuse heaped upon anyone who chooses to do things
differently from him.

There is much to be gained here, and I wouldn't like to give it up.
But I also participate in another environment, less active than this,
but very helpful.  If you're ever looking for a place more designed to
offer helpful advice to people of all skill levels, check out
jsmentors.com. The people who have participated there include Rey
Bango, Asen Bozhilov, Richard Cornford, Angus Croll, John-David
Dalton, Rob G, David Flanagan, kangax, Steven Levithan, Peter Michaux,
Diego Perini, Garrett Smith, Dmitry Soshnikov, Stoyan Stefanov, Stefan
Weiss, Peter van der Zee, and Nicholas Zakas.  In other words, most of
the people here who are quite helpful and knowledgeable also
participate there.

  -- Scott

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

#12827

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Scott Sauyet
<scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>As I said, it's entirely up to you.  I'm very glad of your
>participation in this group.  You've been opening up many interesting
>threads, several of which I've joined.  But Thomas has been around a

     Thank you.  I do try to contribute.

>lot longer, and has often had interesting things to say.

     We have different tipping points on posters.

[snip]

>someone who 'plonk'ed me more than two years ago.  The difference
>between him and Thomas is that Thomas' behavior, while it can be
>grating, is within normal USENET bounds; this other fellow flames
>everyone just out of habit, and make outrageous conceited claims at
>every turn.  His latest foray into the group seems genuinely helpful,

     My standards are higher.  I expect better manners.  Note that I
do not killfile for someone disagreeing, nor do I killfile for someone
suggesting that I might be going the wrong way.  I killfile for
repeated or very severe rudeness.

>but I'd be surprised if it takes long to degrade back into a series of
>insults and abuse heaped upon anyone who chooses to do things
>differently from him.

     Disagreeing is fine by me; being disagreeable is not.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12829

On Mar 16, 9:09 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> It's up to you about the kill-file.  I've only kill-filed one person
> >> in my two and a half years participating here, and even so, I still
> >> read his posts; I've simply chosen (with his expressed approval) to
> >> stop responding to him.  This is another person who can sometimes post
> >> useful content, but who is often just a blowhard.  Thomas has much
> >> more useful material to add, and I'd be loathe to kill-file him.
>
> >      Aside from spammers and one longtime USENET kook, Mr. Lahn is the
> > only one I have killfiled on clj.  I see that he has potential to be
> > helpful, but that is just not good enough, and there are enough
> > basically friendly, helpful sorts here that I need dig into the dregs.
> > I hope others find my posts helpful.
>
> As I said, it's entirely up to you.  I'm very glad of your
> participation in this group.  You've been opening up many interesting
> threads, several of which I've joined.  But Thomas has been around a
> lot longer, and has often had interesting things to say.
>
> My one kill-file has posted often here, and he's recently returned
> from a hiatus.

What a disingenuous twit.

> He often seems to try to goad me into responding,
> which I sometimes do, but only indirectly.

No, I reply when you mention me (by name or not). It would be nice if
you saved the responses.

> I only 'plonk'ed him
> nearly six months after he did so to me.

LOL. As I use GG most of the time (as has been pointed out
repeatedly), any mention of "plonking" is a joke. Of course, you are
relatively new here, so perhaps you haven't gotten your bearings yet.

> But I've stopped responding
> to him, except through oblique channels, whereas he keeps making
> comments on my posts, asking me direct questions, funny behavior from
> someone who 'plonk'ed me more than two years ago.

Really funny you can see my replies if you "plonked" me. All of your
personal BS is OT here BTW.

> The difference
> between him and Thomas is that Thomas' behavior, while it can be
> grating, is within normal USENET bounds; this other fellow flames
> everyone just out of habit, and make outrageous conceited claims at
> every turn.

That's complete nonsense and you know it. Being right is neither
outrageous nor conceited. Unless you are prepared to prove me wrong
about something specific, please STFU.

> His latest foray into the group seems genuinely helpful,
> but I'd be surprised if it takes long to degrade back into a series of
> insults and abuse heaped upon anyone who chooses to do things
> differently from him.

You seem to be obsessed with me and my posts. You've written almost
enough on the subject to fill a book (though I doubt it would sell).
Yeah, I told you that you were wrong for recommending jQuery, Dojo,
etc. because of "excellent documentation" (or whatever). Obviously
that's been proven to be horrible, naive advice and somehow you want
to sell the idea that your goofs are my fault (for pointing them out I
guess). You are not "anyone" and calling *you* on bad advice is not
"insulting" you.

>
> There is much to be gained here, and I wouldn't like to give it up.
> But I also participate in another environment, less active than this,
> but very helpful.  If you're ever looking for a place more designed to
> offer helpful advice to people of all skill levels, check out
> jsmentors.com. The people who have participated there include Rey
> Bango, Asen Bozhilov, Richard Cornford, Angus Croll, John-David
> Dalton, Rob G, David Flanagan, kangax, Steven Levithan, Peter Michaux,
> Diego Perini, Garrett Smith, Dmitry Soshnikov, Stoyan Stefanov, Stefan
> Weiss, Peter van der Zee, and Nicholas Zakas.  In other words, most of
> the people here who are quite helpful and knowledgeable also
> participate there.

You talk far more about other people than about JS and you've been
told repeatedly that it is not appreciated here.

Some of those are helpful and some of those people learned from me
(often here). Some of those people should be ignored, so clearly you
are just name dropping at random. Regardless, why are you so insistent
on pitching JSMentors as an alternative to this newsgroup? Because you
get a pass when you say something stupid over there? You'll never get
such passes here (at least not if I'm around). The point of a
technical newsgroup is accountability by peer review.

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

#12831

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT), David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 16, 9:09 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> My one kill-file has posted often here, and he's recently returned
>> from a hiatus.
>
>What a disingenuous twit.
>
>> He often seems to try to goad me into responding,
>> which I sometimes do, but only indirectly.
>
>No, I reply when you mention me (by name or not). It would be nice if
>you saved the responses.

     If you are the one he was mentioning, you proved his point
nicely.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12835

On Mar 16, 6:42 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT), David Mark
>
> <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 9:09 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> My one kill-file has posted often here, and he's recently returned
> >> from a hiatus.
>
> >What a disingenuous twit.
>
> >> He often seems to try to goad me into responding,
> >> which I sometimes do, but only indirectly.
>
> >No, I reply when you mention me (by name or not). It would be nice if
> >you saved the responses.
>
>      If you are the one he was mentioning, you proved his point
> nicely.
>

As I told you, you have no clue as to what has come before the post.
In a larger sense, that's his problem too.

Do you have time to read my last 5500+ posts (or even just the ones to
which he replied?) There comes a point where interactions become
parodies of parody. I'll sum it up for you: Scott Sauyet lies. He also
infringes on copyrighted material and posts lots of long-winded,
personal rants (usually referring to me, directly or indirectly).
Enough said?

And, as I told him, you are OT (and seeming a bit ungrateful at this
point). :(

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

#12729

On Mar 13, 10:07 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > John G Harris  wrote:
> >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> >>> There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>
> >> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>
> > Tom de Neef apparently does.  Here is a post of mine from
> > 2011-12-01 in reply to him regarding Mr. Lahn:
>
> > "Tom de Neef" wrote:
> >|
> >|> "Gene Wirchenko" wrote:
> >|
> >|>>     Since his posts do not appear useful, ...
> >|
> >|> You must have misread. There was quite some useful info right from the
> >|> start.
> >|> I suggest you focus on content rather than style.
>
> >      No, I prefer to focus on style.  That way I get to know who posts
> > in a readable, helpful style.  Of those, it is almost certain that
> > some will post correct information.  Because their style is readable,
> > it is easier to determine usefulness and correctness.
>
> I'm afraid you're participating in a group where abrasive styles and
> useful content intermingle quite often.  You can, of course, choose to
> ignore those whose style so offends you.  But I'd suggest that is a
> mistake here.  Thomas Lahn has much to say that moves the conversation
> forward.  He has a lot to offer.  But his style is extremely pedantic,
> often condescending, and generally unfriendly.  Nonetheless, I've
> learned a lot from him.  I just generally ignore his more snide
> comments ("There is no Javascript" and the like.)
>
> > I still appreciate helpful posters, and I still have Mr. Lahn in
> > my killfile.
>
> I try to be helpful, and hope that sometimes I achieve it.  But
> remember that this is not a help forum.  This is a discussion group.
> Many people respond only to that which piques their interest, and
> there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> It's up to you about the kill-file.  I've only kill-filed one person
> in my two and a half years participating here, and even so, I still
> read his posts; I've simply chosen (with his expressed approval) to
> stop responding to him.  This is another person who can sometimes post
> useful content, but who is often just a blowhard.  Thomas has much
> more useful material to add, and I'd be loathe to kill-file him.
>

I knew you were lying about the kill-file.  What was the big
announcement (or announcements) in aid of?  I think you are just
jealous of my posts.

And didn't you just pop up a month ago to tell everyone they should
stop using this group and join you and some friends in another group?
I'm sure that was you.

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

#12779

David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> writes:

> Scott Sauyet wrote:

[...]

> I knew you were lying about the kill-file.

Fascinating. Now let me tell you this: If you ever...

Oh wait, Jersey Shore is back on.

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

#12771

On 3/13/2012 4:05 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 at 00:03:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>    <snip>
>> There is no "javascript", that is a common misconception.
>    <snip>
>
> Is there anyone else who agrees with Thomas ?
>

technically, one can argue that the "real" language in question is 
ECMAScript, which comes in several varieties:
JavaScript;
JScript;
ActionScript;
...


I also have my own scripting language, which sort of falls on the border 
between being an ECMAScript variant and an entirely different language 
(ECMAScript core, plus many AS3 features, absent most APIs, plus some 
features from Scheme, Self, C#, C++, ...).


in this sense, JavaScript can be be considered the case of ECMAScript which:
runs in a web-browser;
has lots more browser relevant APIs (DOM, AJAX, ...);
...


whereas a version which, say, for example:
runs in a 3D game engine;
generally looks more like AS3;
doesn't have DOM or AJAX or similar;
...

although maybe mostly conforming with ECMA-262, is a little 
harder-pressed to be called JavaScript (hence, using a different name 
for the language makes more sense).


but, whether or not JavaScript really exists, per-se (rather than being 
a common name for a common use-case of a given core language), could be 
considered a matter of debate.


or such...

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web