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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #29603 > unrolled thread

Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)?

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

Contents

  Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? bpascal123 <bpascal123@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 14:49 -0800
    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 00:05 +0100
      Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? bpascal123 <bpascal123@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:26 -0800
        Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 01:22 +0100
          Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-15 20:00 +0100
        Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-02-15 05:41 -0800
    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? bpascal123 <bpascal123@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 16:59 -0800
      Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 04:20 +0100
        Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2016-02-15 22:18 -0800
        Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-16 08:36 +0100
          Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:45 +0100
            Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-16 20:23 +0100
              Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-16 20:24 +0000
                Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-17 07:31 +1100
                  Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-17 15:57 +0100
                    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-02-17 15:09 +0000
                    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-17 16:09 +0000
                  Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:45 +0000
                    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-18 00:09 +0100
                    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-18 19:29 +1100
                      Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-18 23:36 +0100
                        Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-19 10:51 +0000
                          Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:01 -0800
                    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +0000
              Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:56 +0100
    Re: Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)? bpascal123 <bpascal123@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 04:46 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#29603 — Can someone tell if this is javascript or else (jquery)?

new (function() {
	var jqsdElements = { };

	this.changeActiveState = function(obj, mode, enabled) {
		switch (mode) {
			case 'hide':
				if (enabled) {
					obj.show();
				} else {
					obj.hide();
				}
				break;
			case 'disable':
			default:
				if (enabled) {
					obj.attr('disabled', false);
				} else {
					obj.attr('disabled', 'disabled');
				}
				break;
		}
	};

	this.disableChildren = function(node_id) {
		if (node_id in jqsdElements) {
			for (var dependent in jqsdElements[node_id]) {
				var el = $('#' + dependent);
				var mode = el.attr('jqsd:hide_mode');
				el.find(':nth-child(1)').prop('selected',true);
				this.changeActiveState(el, mode, false);
				this.disableChildren(dependent);
			}
		}
	};

	this.onChange = function(id, val) {
		for (var dependent in jqsdElements[id]) {
			var dObj = $('#' + dependent);
			var keys = ['_ALL_'];

			if (val in jqsdElements[id][dependent]['options']) {
				keys[keys.length] = val;
			}

			dObj.find('option').remove();

			var totalOps = 0;
			var opsToAdd = { };

			for (var i=0;i<keys.length;i++) {
				var key = keys[i];
				for (var optOrder in jqsdElements[id][dependent]['options'][key]) {
					var opt = jqsdElements[id][dependent]['options'][key][optOrder];
					opsToAdd[optOrder] = opt;
					totalOps++;
				}
			}

			if (Object.keys) {
				var reOrder = opsToAdd, keys = Object.keys(opsToAdd), i, len = keys.length;
				keys.sort();

				for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
					k = keys[i];
					dObj.append(opsToAdd[k]);
				}
			} else {
				for (var orderKey in opsToAdd) {
					dObj.append(opsToAdd[orderKey]);
				}
			}

			dObj.find(':nth-child(1)').prop('selected',true);

			this.disableChildren(dependent);

			if (totalOps > 0) {
				if (totalOps == 1) {
					if (dObj.find(':nth-child(1)').val() != '') {
						this.changeActiveState(dObj, jqsdElements[id][dependent].hidemode, true);
					}
				} else {
					this.changeActiveState(dObj, jqsdElements[id][dependent].hidemode, true);
				}
			}
		}
	};

	this.init = function() {
		var p = this;
		$('select[jqsd\\:depends_on]').each(function() {
			var selId = $(this).attr('id');

			if (!selId) {
				alert('JQSD Error - One or more selects are missing id values');
				return;
			}

			var hideMode = ($(this).attr('jqsd:hide_mode')) ? $(this).attr('jqsd:hide_mode') : 'disable';
			var depends_on = $(this).attr('jqsd:depends_on');

			p.changeActiveState($(this), hideMode, false);

			if ($('#' + depends_on).length == 0) {
				alert('JQSD Error - One or more selects are missing id values');
				return;
			}

			var options = {
				'_ALL_': { }
			};

			var optOrder = 0;
			$(this).find('option').each(function() {
				var rel = $(this).attr('rel');
				if (!rel) {
					options['_ALL_'][optOrder] = $(this);
				} else {
					var opts = rel.split(',');
					for (var i=0;i<opts.length;i++) {
						if (!options[opts[i]]) {
							options[opts[i]] = [ ];
						}

						options[opts[i]][optOrder] = $(this);
					}
				}

				optOrder++;
			});

			if (!jqsdElements[depends_on]) {
				jqsdElements[depends_on] = { };
			}

			jqsdElements[depends_on][selId] = {
				options: options,
				hidemode: hideMode
			};

			p.onChange(depends_on, $('#' + depends_on).val());
		});

		$('select').on('change', $.proxy(function(evt) {
			var id = $(evt.target).attr('id');
	
			if (!(id in jqsdElements)) {
				return;
			}
	
			var val = $(evt.target).val();

			this.onChange(id, val);
		}, this));
	}

	this.preInit = function() {
		$(document).ready($.proxy(this.init, this));
	}

})().preInit();

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29604

On 02/14/2016 23:49, bpascal123 wrote:
> new (function() {
> 	var jqsdElements = { };
[snip]

Yes, this is JavaScript, almost certainly using jQuery (which is a
library written in JavaScript).

- stefan

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

#29605

Thanks, I think I know what jQuery is. So in other words, this script written using javascript syntax uses (calls) jQuery objects or methods?

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

#29606

On 02/15/2016 00:26, bpascal123 wrote:
> Thanks, I think I know what jQuery is. So in other words, this script
> written using javascript syntax uses (calls) jQuery objects or methods?

Yes, that's correct.

- stefan

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

#29609

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> On 02/15/2016 00:26, bpascal123 wrote:
>> Thanks, I think I know what jQuery is. So in other words, this script
>> written using javascript syntax uses (calls) jQuery objects or methods?
> 
> Yes, that's correct.

Aside from the fact that there is no “javascript syntax” as there is no 
“javascript”.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#29607

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:26:24 PM UTC-6, bpascal123 wrote:
> Thanks, I think I know what jQuery is. So in other words, this script written using javascript syntax uses (calls) jQuery objects or methods?


If that was true, then you should be aware that there exists a a property called $.jquery you can test for 

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

#29611

So JQSD is likely to stand for some jsquery methods...?

Another question if you have the time for a short answer

Is it possible to achieve the same result of this script (3 dependant drop down validation boxes) using javascript without any jquery.

I can see javascript is evolving fast with objects of its own, before these were functions and now that there are formal objects and constructors. Can we achieve things like this script that have nothing to do with responding design jquery is best for (please tell me if I'm wrong) but just simple DOM elements to manipulate data? Javascript is becoming good at it. However, still a long road to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, my daily tool.

Thanks

Pascal

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

#29612

On 02/16/2016 01:59, bpascal123 wrote:
> So JQSD is likely to stand for some jsquery methods...?

Possibly. I don't know anything called JQSD, so I can't comment on that.

> Is it possible to achieve the same result of this script (3 dependant
> drop down validation boxes) using javascript without any jquery.

jQuery is just JavaScript; anything you can do with it you can also do
without it. Maybe not as conveniently, but you can always use other
toolkits or write your own custom tools if you feel like it.

I don't know what the script you posted does, and I'm too tired to read
it at the moment. It would help if you could explain where you found it
and what you're trying to accomplish.

> I can see javascript is evolving fast with objects of its own, before
> these were functions and now that there are formal objects and
> constructors.

Objects and constructors have been basic building blocks in JavaScript
from the start.

> Can we achieve things like this script that have
> nothing to do with responding design jquery is best for (please tell
> me if I'm wrong) but just simple DOM elements to manipulate data?
> Javascript is becoming good at it. However, still a long road to
> Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, my daily tool.

Spreadsheets have been written as browser-based components with
JavaScript before (see Google Docs, for example). I can tell you from
experience that developing something like Excel in HTML+JS is not
trivial at all. Granted, it's almost been 10 years since I took a stab
at it, and things have improved a lot since then, but today I wouldn't
start a project like that without a *very* good reason. There are plenty
of ready-made components to choose from, if you just want to use the
spreadsheet (as opposed to programming it yourself). Many of them depend
on external libraries like jQuery etc.

As for what jQuery is best for... most of the regulars in this group are
heavily biased against jQuery, so you're unlikely to get a straight
answer here :)
Still, if it's a plain JS library (like jQuery), you can do everything
it does with plain JS yourself. General purpose libraries can make
certain tasks easier, and they often have an ecosystem of plugins (of
varying quality) to choose from. I can't give any recommendations either
way, until I know more about your level of experience with JavaScript
and programming in general, and what you're trying to create.


- stefan

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

#29615

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 9:20:20 PM UTC-6, Stefan Weiss wrote:

> Spreadsheets have been written as browser-based components with
> JavaScript before (see Google Docs, for example). I can tell you from
> experience that developing something like Excel in HTML+JS is not
> trivial at all. Granted, it's almost been 10 years since I took a stab
> at it, and things have improved a lot since then, but today I wouldn't
> start a project like that without a *very* good reason.

I created a WYSIWYG editor for an email campaign manager just 3 years ago, and you're right. Even today something as reduced as a basic Excel-like editor is non-trivial. You frankly can not rely on Content Editable and have to do nearly everything from scratch to get the desired results at scale. For good or for ill at least one learns quite a lot about the hairiness of table layout...

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

#29616

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> As for what jQuery is best for... most of the regulars in this group are
> heavily biased against jQuery, so you're unlikely to get a straight
> answer here :)
> Still, if it's a plain JS library (like jQuery), you can do everything
> it does with plain JS yourself.

No, because "JS" (here short for the proper term “ECMAScript 
implementations”) does not include APIs like the DOM that are necessary to 
achieve this.  Those are provided by the respective host environment and can 
be used with "JS" (and other programming languages) either directly or 
through libraries like jQuery that wrap this accessing capability for 
developer convenience.

The problem with jQuery and the likes is not that you can live without them, 
but that in their design, convenience has been given greater priority than 
runtime and memory efficiency and backwards compatibility (marketing calls 
this problem “write less, do more”), and that as APIs converge and new CSS 
features emerge, an increasing number of features more conveniently provided 
by jQuery and the likes becomes unnecessary to use to achieve something.  
For example, simple transitions are better written in CSS directly nowadays.

The problem with jQuery and the likes is that you learn to do things a 
certain way (with CSS-like selectors) which will make it harder for you to 
even consider alternatives when they are better than the jQuery-ish way.

<http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#29617

On 02/16/2016 08:36, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>> Still, if it's a plain JS library (like jQuery), you can do everything
>> it does with plain JS yourself.
> 
> No, because "JS" [...] does not include APIs like the DOM that are
> necessary to achieve this.

Neither does jQuery. The environment either has access to the DOM, or it
doesn't. In either case, everything jQuery does can be done without it.
Besides, we were talking about browser-based components, so the
availability of the DOM was implied.

> The problem with jQuery and the likes is not that you can live without them, 
> but that in their design, convenience has been given greater priority than 
> runtime and memory efficiency and backwards compatibility (marketing calls 
> this problem “write less, do more”), and that as APIs converge and new CSS 
> features emerge, an increasing number of features more conveniently provided 
> by jQuery and the likes becomes unnecessary to use to achieve something.  
> For example, simple transitions are better written in CSS directly nowadays.

I pretty much agree with this.

> The problem with jQuery and the likes is that you learn to do things a 
> certain way (with CSS-like selectors) which will make it harder for you to 
> even consider alternatives when they are better than the jQuery-ish way.

And with this, too, although I wouldn't throw out the baby with the
bathwater: query selectors are an immensely useful feature, whether or
not jQuery is used. Native support for them is good enough nowadays for
most use cases.

- stefan

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

#29618

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> On 02/16/2016 08:36, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>> Still, if it's a plain JS library (like jQuery), you can do everything
>>> it does with plain JS yourself.
>> No, because "JS" [...] does not include APIs like the DOM that are
>> necessary to achieve this.
> 
> Neither does jQuery. The environment either has access to the DOM, or it
> doesn't. In either case, everything jQuery does can be done without it.
> Besides, we were talking about browser-based components, so the
> availability of the DOM was implied.

You are missing the point.  Saying that you can do the same that jQuery does 
with “plain JS” implies that you can do *those* things with “plain JS”.  
But, as a matter of fact you cannot, because “plain JS” actually does not 
include using APIs like the DOM that jQuery uses a lot.

It is important to make that difference in this newsgroup at least, and to 
avoid spreading further, by such imprecise (underinformed, or simply 
ignorant) wording, the common misconception to beginners that everything 
they do in browsers is “(plain) JS” (in its worst form, “javascript”¹) where 
“JS” (or “javascript”) would, by *misdefinition*, have to include everything 
scriptable that browsers would provide.

Therefore, a more precise wording that could be recommended, if only in 
parts:

You have to use additional *language-independent* API( implementation)s with 
those scripting languages to achieve what you can do with jQuery and similar 
libraries, and you can use those language-independent APIs either directly, 
or through libraries that wrap that API (implementation) access (mostly) for 
developer convenience (nowadays).

See also the introduction to the ECMAScript Support Matrix (URI in 
signature) for a wording into which more free time was invested, that might 
be easier to understand.

_______
¹  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
   comp.lang.javascript”
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#29619

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:23:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>“javascript”¹)

  <snip>
>¹  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
>   comp.lang.javascript”

Oh dear. He'll never understand the concept of a class. In this case
the class of all ECMAScript implementations and their predecessors.

  John

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

#29620

On 17/02/2016 7:24 AM, John Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:23:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>    <snip>
>> “javascript”¹)
>
>    <snip>
>> ¹  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
>>    comp.lang.javascript”
>
> Oh dear. He'll never understand the concept of a class. In this case
> the class of all ECMAScript implementations and their predecessors.

As this is programming, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a set 
because a class is "... a template definition of the method s and 
variable s in a particular kind of object"?

Andrew Poulos

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

#29625

Andrew Poulos wrote:

> On 17/02/2016 7:24 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>    <snip>
>>> “javascript”¹)
>>
>>    <snip>
>>> ¹  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
>>>    comp.lang.javascript”
>> Oh dear. He'll never understand the concept of a class. In this case
>> the class of all ECMAScript implementations and their predecessors.
> 
> As this is programming, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a set
> because a class is "... a template definition of the method s and
> variable s in a particular kind of object"?

Please do not feed the troll.  The record shows that “javascript” is a 
misnomer that frequently leads to misunderstandings, particularly among 
beginners, outside of the FAQ, and in it in particular.  It has been 
deprecated by several regulars already, but at the time there was no FAQ 
editor willing/available to correct that nonsense accordingly.  Now there 
is.

-- 
PointedEars, ed.
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#29626

In article <1864172.qbm0T80u8X@PointedEars.de>, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> On 17/02/2016 7:24 AM, John Harris wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
>>>    <snip>
>>>> “javascript”1)
>>>
>>>    <snip>
>>>> 1  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
>>>>    comp.lang.javascript”
>>> Oh dear. He'll never understand the concept of a class. In this case
>>> the class of all ECMAScript implementations and their predecessors.
>> 
>> As this is programming, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a set
>> because a class is "... a template definition of the method s and
>> variable s in a particular kind of object"?
>
>Please do not feed the troll.  The record shows that “javascript” is a 
>misnomer that frequently leads to misunderstandings, ...

Stuff and nonsense. You have a fixation with matters which are
trivially unimportant. You've already been shown up as a fool once
today with your narrow-minded interpretations. If you keep this up we
can start a book - how many idiot postings by PointyHead in one day.

-- 
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without 
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

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

#29628

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:57:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>The record shows that “javascript” is a 
>misnomer that frequently leads to misunderstandings
  <snip>

This shows that Thomas is totally incapable of thinking straight on
this subject. 

a) If it's a misnomer then it's correct to say javascript does not
exist. It's still not correct to say it in an unpleasant way.

b) If it leads to misunderstanding then it's correct to clear up the
misunderstanding. It's not correct to say the thing misunderstood does
not exist. It's also impolite to assume that someone has misunderstood
with no factual evidence.

Calling everyone a troll who doesn't agree with you is another cheap
debating trick.

  John

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

#29627

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:31:34 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 17/02/2016 7:24 AM, John Harris wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:23:29 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>    <snip>
>>> “javascript”¹)
>>
>>    <snip>
>>> ¹  hopefully not for much longer to be found in the “FAQ for
>>>    comp.lang.javascript”
>>
>> Oh dear. He'll never understand the concept of a class. In this case
>> the class of all ECMAScript implementations and their predecessors.
>
>As this is programming, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a set 
>because a class is "... a template definition of the method s and 
>variable s in a particular kind of object"?

I'm using class in the English conversation sense, as in Upper class,
Middle class, Working class, and as in First Class, Second Class. I
prefer to restrict 'set' to mathematical objects built from the empty
set and nothing else.

In programming I prefer to think of a class as a collection of objects
that have something in common. The something in common is defined in
the class declaration or equivalent. Calling that a template is a bit
over the top.

  John

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

#29630

Stefan Ram wrote:

>   ECMAscript 2015 curiously does not use the term  »class«,

Nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#29631

On 18/02/2016 9:42 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:31:34 +1100, Andrew Poulos
>>> As this is programming, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a set
>>> because a class is "... a template definition of the method s and
>>> variable s in a particular kind of object"?
>> In programming I prefer to think of a class as a collection of objects
>> that have something in common. The something in common is defined in
>> the class declaration or equivalent. Calling that a template is a bit
>> over the top.
>
>    What Andrew quoted obviously does not make sense.

By that as it may, but a few websites disagree with your conclusion. For 
example
   <http://codetpoint.com/java/java-oops-concept/>

Andrew Poulos

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web