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

Groups > comp.programming > #6712 > unrolled thread

Programming

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Programming HQM <harisqmega@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:07 -0700
    Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-16 16:40 +0100
      Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-17 09:16 -0700
        Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-17 17:53 +0100
          Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-17 20:31 +0100
            Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 00:57 +0100
              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 05:36 +0100
                Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 08:13 -0700
                  Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:33 +0100
                    Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 16:44 +0100
                      Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 17:01 +0100
                        Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 09:16 -0700
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 17:23 +0100
                            Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 09:28 -0700
                              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 18:00 +0100
                        Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:28 +0100
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 18:54 +0100
                            Re: Programming "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2016-07-18 21:12 +0100
                              Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 21:24 +0100
                                Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 14:49 -0700
                        Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-18 20:03 +0100
                          Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 20:24 +0100
                          Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 16:17 -0700
                        Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:30 -0400
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:22 -0400
                Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 16:25 +0100
                Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 21:18 -0400
                  Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 03:35 +0100
                    Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:37 -0400
                      Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:50 +0100
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:41 -0400
                    Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 03:31 -0400
                  Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 21:01 -0400
              Re: Programming "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 05:02 -0400
                Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 10:35 +0100
              Re: Programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-18 10:02 +0100
              Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 07:52 -0700
                Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:25 +0100
                  Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-18 08:32 -0700
                    Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 16:36 +0100
      Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 13:02 +0100
        Re: Programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 13:38 +0100
    Re: Programming BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 22:38 +0100
    Re: Programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-17 09:20 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#6712 — Programming

Hi my name is Harris,


I have been looking to much to find a way to make an app (simple app) but I didn't find a way to make it so i just thought that this group will tell me the easiest way to make an app

Thanks .

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6713

On 16/07/16 15:07, HQM wrote:
> Hi my name is Harris,

Hello, Harris.

> I have been looking to much to find a way to make an app (simple app) but I didn't find a way to make it so i just thought that this group will tell me the easiest way to make an app

The easiest way to make an app is... quite difficult.

Nowadays the easiest road is probably via HTML. Learn how to do a Web 
page. (Stay well away from JavaScript, because that's a blind alley.)

Once you can do a Web page, learn how to make it do tricks, using PHP. 
The great thing about PHP is that it accepts ordinary HTML "as is", so 
you can build up your understanding slowly while still having something 
worthwhile to show for it.

Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real" 
programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).

Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C 
or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be 
written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you 
want to go.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6717

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/07/16 15:07, HQM wrote:
> > Hi my name is Harris,
> 
> Hello, Harris.
> 
> > I have been looking to much to find a way to make an app (simple app) but I didn't find a way to make it so i just thought that this group will tell me the easiest way to make an app
> 
> The easiest way to make an app is... quite difficult.
> 
> Nowadays the easiest road is probably via HTML. Learn how to do a Web 
> page. (Stay well away from JavaScript, because that's a blind alley.)
> 
> Once you can do a Web page, learn how to make it do tricks, using PHP. 
> The great thing about PHP is that it accepts ordinary HTML "as is", so 
> you can build up your understanding slowly while still having something 
> worthwhile to show for it.
> 
> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real" 
> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
> 
> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C 
> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be 
> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you 
> want to go.

Congratulations: good load of bullshit.

Julio

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

#6720

On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/07/16 15:07, HQM wrote:
>>> Hi my name is Harris,
>>
>> Hello, Harris.
>>
>>> I have been looking to much to find a way to make an app (simple app) but I didn't find a way to make it so i just thought that this group will tell me the easiest way to make an app
>>
>> The easiest way to make an app is... quite difficult.
>>
>> Nowadays the easiest road is probably via HTML. Learn how to do a Web
>> page. (Stay well away from JavaScript, because that's a blind alley.)
>>
>> Once you can do a Web page, learn how to make it do tricks, using PHP.
>> The great thing about PHP is that it accepts ordinary HTML "as is", so
>> you can build up your understanding slowly while still having something
>> worthwhile to show for it.
>>
>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>
>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>> want to go.
>
> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.

Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and 
skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6723

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>>
>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>>> want to go.
>>
>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
>
> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.

Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
round.)

-- 
Ben.

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

#6725

On 17/07/16 20:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On 17/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> Once you've mastered PHP, you're probably ready to tackle a "real"
>>>> programming language (although I'm being unfair to PHP).
>>>>
>>>> Real programs for real users tend to be written in languages such as C
>>>> or C++. Toy programs for toy users (e.g. Windows users) tend to be
>>>> written in VB.NET or C#. So you kind of have to choose which way you
>>>> want to go.
>>>
>>> Congratulations: good load of bullshit.
>>
>> Congratulations: well-reasoned argument, carefully thought out and
>> skilfully presented to win hearts and minds.
>
> Your points got exactly the level of reasoned argument that they
> deserve.  (I thought you were joking so I didn't say anything first time
> round.)

Ouch. No, I wasn't joking.

I answered as I did because the tone of the OP gave me the impression 
that the OP wanted to learn programming without a lot of investment of 
effort on his part ("tell me the easiest way"). There is no question 
whatsoever in my mind that HTML is the easiest-to-learn mainstream 
computer language (and note that I have carefully avoided saying 
"programming language"). With only a modicum of knowledge you can 
produce a reasonable product quite quickly. Then all you have to do to 
turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start 
playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing 
loops and stuff. And that's quite a gentle entry into the world of 
programming, which I would argue constitutes a reasonable answer to "the 
easiest way".

I question your claim, sir.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6728

On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
>
>    Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
>    be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.

That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to 
get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get 
a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)

>    In fact, the best language for learners with little time is VBA.

Despite being a long-time Microsoft-sceptic, I must confess to a soft 
spot for VB - and therefore for its children - as it was the product 
that made Windows programming possible for ordinary folk. So I'm not 
automatically going to push the anti-Windows button here. Nevertheless, 
VBA (if I am not mistaken) requires Microsoft Office, doesn't it? And 
that's a substantial investment for people who are just starting out. 
But there is a macro language in LibreOffice, too, and LibreOffice is 
free (and cross-platform).

>    . It has a GUI builder where one can easily draw a simple
>    calculator with two text boxes and one push button on the screen
>    (a "user form"), and then add /one/ small line of code to the button
>
> TextBox2 = 2 * TextBox1
>
>    to have programmed a full-blown calculator that will be able
>    to double many numbers at the push of a button.

That's fine if you know what to write. (It's easy for programmers to 
forget what it was like not knowing how to write programs.) But of 
course that's going to be true of any route into programming - at some 
point, the learner has to learn something, and learning can be hard work.

>    And one can combine this with all the power of applications such
>    as Microsoft® Word, Microsoft® Excel, or Microsoft® Access
>    to quickly solve many problems.

Or indeed /cause/ many problems. :-)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6737

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:36:26 AM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> >> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
> >> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
> >
> >    Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
> >    be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
> 
> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to 
> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get 
> a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)

Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time, but also on user systems at least since Win 98 (if not since Win 95, I am not sure).  As well as gone is the time when their C/C++ compilers were a paid product: not to mention, now as then, if you dislike MS compilers, you can just use gcc...  To be clear, I do not specifically endorse Microsoft and I am even very critical with them for many things (though I am with many other vendors, too, and with some even more), but really, you are just talking of things you patently know jack about...

Julio

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

#6741

On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:36:26 AM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 05:14, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>> turn that HTML into legal PHP is to rename the file. Next, you can start
>>>> playing with simple PHP constructs, and before you know it you're doing
>>>
>>>     Under an out-of-the-box windows, the file extension »html« will
>>>     be recognized, but I am afraid »php« won't.
>>
>> That's true (and even under LAMP, you have to do a little fiddling to
>> get it to work), but under an out-of-the-box Windows, you don't even get
>> a C compiler, FCOL! (I don't think you even get a Web server, do you?)
>
> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
 > component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
 > but also on user systems at least since Win 98

Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current 
Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and 
yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10 
installed. I looked in vain for IIS, for a C compiler of any 
description, for an office suite that wasn't time-limited, and indeed 
for any software even marginally more useful than "Paint" and "Notepad".

> (if not since Win 95, I am not sure).  As well as gone is
 > the time when their C/C++ compilers were a paid product:
 > not to mention, now as then, if you dislike MS compilers,

Oh, but I don't. I am quite a fan of Visual Studio, albeit not 
uncritically so. In fact, I'm quite a fan of the Windows API. I find it 
much more intuitive than the Linux equivalent. And I have said as much 
on Usenet, several times over the years. (So much for jumping to 
conclusions on insufficient data.)

 > you can just use gcc...  To be clear, I do not specifically
 > endorse Microsoft and I am even very critical with them for
 > many things (though I am with many other vendors, too, and
 > with some even more), but really, you are just talking of
 > things you patently know jack about...

Got it. Thanks for that. I really appreciate your input. I've been using 
Windows since Version 2, by the way. (Yep, the one that was released 
about 30 years ago, and was actually slightly more painful to use than 
GEM, if that's possible.)

But obviously I don't know anything about it. I realise that now. I'm 
glad you showed up to set me straight.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6743

On 18/07/2016 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
>> component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
>> but also on user systems at least since Win 98
>
> Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current
> Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and
> yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10
> installed. I looked in vain for IIS

 From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":

"...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows 
NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home 
edition), and is not active by default."

(I didn't read the rest of the article as it is gobbledygook to me.)

-- 
Bartc

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

#6744

On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:
> On 18/07/2016 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>
>>> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
>>> component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
>>> but also on user systems at least since Win 98
>>
>> Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current
>> Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and
>> yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10
>> installed. I looked in vain for IIS
>
>  From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
>
> "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
> NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
> edition), and is not active by default."
>
> (I didn't read the rest of the article as it is gobbledygook to me.)

Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated 
to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the 
one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just 
so that they can get some JavaScript experience. By comparison, Apache 
has been present and working on every Linux distro I've ever used, 
except for Ubuntu (where it's just a "sudo apt-get install" away).

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6748

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:01:19 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:
> > On 18/07/2016 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> >
> >>> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
> >>> component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
> >>> but also on user systems at least since Win 98
> >>
> >> Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current
> >> Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and
> >> yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10
> >> installed. I looked in vain for IIS
> >
> >  From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
> >
> > "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
> > NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
> > edition), and is not active by default."
> >
> > (I didn't read the rest of the article as it is gobbledygook to me.)
> 
> Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated 
> to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the 
> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine

Well, nothing personal really, but that is the point: leave the job to the professionals, or so it should be.

> just so that they can get some JavaScript experience.

Again nonsense: in particular, you don't need any web server to get HTML/CSS/JS to work.

> By comparison, Apache 
> has been present and working on every Linux distro I've ever used, 
> except for Ubuntu (where it's just a "sudo apt-get install" away).

BTW, so that you know, IIS on Windows is few clicks away: but I won't tell you were it is, if you can't even google it up...

Julio

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

#6749

On 18/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:01:19 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 16:33, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 18/07/16 16:13, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Internet Information Services (IIS) has been a standard Windows
>>>>> component not only on all MS server OS's since the dawn of time,
>>>>> but also on user systems at least since Win 98
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I don't seem to be able to find it on any of my current
>>>> Windows systems (XP, Vista, and W7). Nor could I find it on W10 (and
>>>> yes, I did look) when a friend of mine bought a new laptop with W10
>>>> installed. I looked in vain for IIS
>>>
>>>   From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
>>>
>>> "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
>>> NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
>>> edition), and is not active by default."
>>>
>>> (I didn't read the rest of the article as it is gobbledygook to me.)
>>
>> Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated
>> to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the
>> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine
>
> Well, nothing personal really,

That comes a little late in the day. By the way, you might want to look 
up *PLONK*, because (in Inigo Montoya's words) I do not think it means 
what you think it means. (Otherwise, you would not have replied to me, 
because you would not have seen my article.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6750

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:23:49 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
<snip>
> > Well, nothing personal really,
> 
> That comes a little late in the day. By the way, you might want to look 
> up *PLONK*, because (in Inigo Montoya's words) I do not think it means 
> what you think it means. (Otherwise, you would not have replied to me, 
> because you would not have seen my article.)

"Plonk" does not mean kill-filing someone, it is the noise of a file that gets into the bin... namely, it means I am not anymore interested.

Man, you can't lose, can you?  :)

EOD.  (That now means I am out of here.)

Julio

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

#6752

On 18/07/16 17:28, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:23:49 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 17:16, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Well, nothing personal really,
>>
>> That comes a little late in the day. By the way, you might want to look
>> up *PLONK*, because (in Inigo Montoya's words) I do not think it means
>> what you think it means. (Otherwise, you would not have replied to me,
>> because you would not have seen my article.)
>
> "Plonk" does not mean kill-filing someone,

Interesting view. Thanks for sharing.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6753

On 18/07/2016 17:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:

>>  From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
>>
>> "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
>> NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
>> edition), and is not active by default."

> Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated
> to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the
> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just
> so that they can get some JavaScript experience.

That's simple enough. Here's an on-line Javascript interpreter:

http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/

And here's the first program I tried (based on modifying the given 
example rather than any knowledge of Javascript):

writeln("Hello, World!");

-- 
bartc

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

#6754

On 18/07/16 18:28, BartC wrote:
> On 18/07/2016 17:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 16:44, BartC wrote:
>
>>>  From the Wikipedia entry on "Internet Information Services":
>>>
>>> "...It has been an integral part of the Windows NT family since Windows
>>> NT 4.0, though it may be absent from some editions (e.g. Windows XP Home
>>> edition), and is not active by default."
>
>> Understandable. Well, I never found it, anyway, despite being motivated
>> to look (at various points in the past). So I'd hate to have to be the
>> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just
>> so that they can get some JavaScript experience.
>
> That's simple enough. Here's an on-line Javascript interpreter:
>
> http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/
>
> And here's the first program I tried (based on modifying the given
> example rather than any knowledge of Javascript):
>
> writeln("Hello, World!");

Sure, but is it really satisfactory to /require/ an Internet connection 
as part of the process of learning how to write a program? I realise 
that it might be considered by some people to be /pragmatic/, but I 
can't help thinking it lacks elegance. Surely, in this day and age, it 
ought to be possible to write a program without having to have an 
Internet connection?

Of course, the same objection can be levelled at my original suggestion: 
is it really elegant to require a Web server, even if it's running on 
the user's machine? Well, no, it isn't, which is why I went on to say 
that, having played for a bit with HTML and then made some initial 
forays into PHP, one may well have learned enough about programming that 
the transition to a language such as Java, or C, or Go (all of which can 
be used without a Web server) will be less of a shock.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6758

"Richard Heathfield" wrote:
> On 18/07/16 18:28, BartC wrote:
>> On 18/07/2016 17:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [...] So I'd hate to have to be the
>>> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just
>>> so that they can get some JavaScript experience.
>>
>> That's simple enough. Here's an on-line Javascript interpreter:
>>
>> http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/
>>
>> And here's the first program I tried (based on modifying the given
>> example rather than any knowledge of Javascript):
>>
>> writeln("Hello, World!");
>
> Sure, but is it really satisfactory to /require/ an Internet connection
> as part of the process of learning how to write a program?

You don't need IIS or an internet connection to run script programs on
Windsows. Use the Windows Script Host to run JS, VBS, WSF or WSH files.
Run them from the GUI or the command line using 'wscript' or 'cscript'.

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

#6759

On 18/07/16 21:12, Ant wrote:
> "Richard Heathfield" wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 18:28, BartC wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 17:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> [...] So I'd hate to have to be the
>>>> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just
>>>> so that they can get some JavaScript experience.
>>>
>>> That's simple enough. Here's an on-line Javascript interpreter:
>>>
>>> http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/
>>>
>>> And here's the first program I tried (based on modifying the given
>>> example rather than any knowledge of Javascript):
>>>
>>> writeln("Hello, World!");
>>
>> Sure, but is it really satisfactory to /require/ an Internet connection
>> as part of the process of learning how to write a program?
>
> You don't need IIS or an internet connection to run script programs on
> Windsows. Use the Windows Script Host to run JS, VBS, WSF or WSH files.
> Run them from the GUI or the command line using 'wscript' or 'cscript'.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the info. (Really truly!)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#6760

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:24:32 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 18/07/16 21:12, Ant wrote:
> > "Richard Heathfield" wrote:
> >> On 18/07/16 18:28, BartC wrote:
> >>> On 18/07/2016 17:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>> [...] So I'd hate to have to be the
> >>>> one to explain to a newbie how to get IIS working on their machine just
> >>>> so that they can get some JavaScript experience.
> >>>
> >>> That's simple enough. Here's an on-line Javascript interpreter:
> >>>
> >>> http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/
> >>>
> >>> And here's the first program I tried (based on modifying the given
> >>> example rather than any knowledge of Javascript):
> >>>
> >>> writeln("Hello, World!");
> >>
> >> Sure, but is it really satisfactory to /require/ an Internet connection
> >> as part of the process of learning how to write a program?
> >
> > You don't need IIS or an internet connection to run script programs on
> > Windsows. Use the Windows Script Host to run JS, VBS, WSF or WSH files.
> > Run them from the GUI or the command line using 'wscript' or 'cscript'.
> 
> Thank you for that. I appreciate the info. (Really truly!)

Were it not that the world is mainly dying of deep stupidity, I'd be laughing my ass out...

Guys, you must be f*cking kidding: there is a JS interpreter in every f*cking Internet browser, and no, not even that means you need to connect to the Internet.

Put the following in a text file and save it as "test.html".  Then, usually, just double-click on it...

--------------------------------------
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
	<meta charset="utf-8" />
	<title>JS test</title>
</head>
<body>
	<div id="output"></div>
	
	<script>
		var output = document.getElementById("output");
		
		var value = 2 + 2;
		
		output.innerHTML = "2 + 2 = " + value;
	</script>
</body>
</html>
---------------------------------------

And now *fuck off*.

Julio

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web