Menu
▾
▴
dynapi-dev
|
From: Pascal <pb...@oi...> - 2001-01-29 14:29:28
|
Object Oriented indeed, as Dann mentioned, embraces both Class and Prototyping. Your stating that prototyping doesn't exist, but then you should take a better look at what where doing with the DynAPI.. correct: Prototyping. There might not be much info on prototyping out there on the net, but javascript is actually using prototyping, not class-based. Both class and prototyping fall under Object Oriented development. I don't know what the definition of OO is, but I think it's just a global definition of developing things using reusable-object code, under which both class-based and prototype-based fall. Also your previous mail stated "OO in JS or ECMA script is documented. If you read carefully you will notice that JS was designed as a Class Oriented language".. I'm pretty sure the original Netscape implementation of javascript was build on Prototype-based (as stated in there documentation) And coming back to that ever lasting quest of mine, redoing inheritence, or creating functions for it is not needed.. the way we are currently doing widgets is how Javascript handles inheriting (with prototyping).. the same structure and idea can be implemented to the DynLayer and DynDocument objects (see Dynacore on howto). Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...) Software ontwikkelaar Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v. http://www.oibv.com > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan > Heidingsfeld > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 14:14 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > Lets really get the terms straight. > > Class-Oriented: You develop classes. You do this be using the > prototype of > an object. Then this object becomes basically a prototype, a > class and then > for inheritance an object says use this objects prototype and > add these > members. > Object-Oriented: You develop classes by defining an interface and then > implementing this interface. To use this object you create a > new object > based on this class. Inheritance is dealt with by saying I > want to inherit > this and this class. Then your new object has the same > members as those > classes with pointers to their implementation. > > There is no PO only CO and OO the difference is inheritance and memory > management but since there is no memory management in JS there is no > difference but inheritance. > 8an > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
|
From: .:: O. ::. <oc...@ho...> - 2001-01-29 17:15:23
|
Next generation ??? Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another generation of the API. I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it makes common sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and bug free before launching into another generation of the API. Flame away !!!! >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> >Reply-To: dyn...@li... >To: <dyn...@li...> >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works >beautifully, >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first >line of this article: > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm > >reads as follows: > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather >than, >as is common, being class-based." > >-jaredn > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dynapi-Dev mailing list >Dyn...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. |
|
From: Matthew A. S. <ms...@go...> - 2001-01-29 17:20:30
|
No flames coming from me, I agree 100%. M. -----Original Message----- From: dyn...@li... [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of .:: OCB ::. Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:15 AM To: dyn...@li... Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation Next generation ??? Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another generation of the API. I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it makes common sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and bug free before launching into another generation of the API. Flame away !!!! >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> >Reply-To: dyn...@li... >To: <dyn...@li...> >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works >beautifully, >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first >line of this article: > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm > >reads as follows: > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather >than, >as is common, being class-based." > >-jaredn > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dynapi-Dev mailing list >Dyn...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list Dyn...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Pascal B. <pa...@dy...> - 2001-01-29 18:06:42
|
not to get involved inanother browser-war (After wards) Netscape made Javascript to what it is now.. so if they say so, I believe them :-) Pascal Bestebroer pa...@dy... http://www.dynamic-core.net > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Doug Melvin > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 20:26 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > An if Netscrape says it it has to be correct? |
|
From: Michael E. <Mic...@il...> - 2001-01-29 22:56:04
|
Amen brother! No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our software is to be taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check the browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on statistics gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are typically not representative of our products end-users). Mike Ellis -----Original Message----- From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 To: dyn...@li... Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation Next generation ??? Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another generation of the API. I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it makes common sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and bug free before launching into another generation of the API. Flame away !!!! >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> >Reply-To: dyn...@li... >To: <dyn...@li...> >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works >beautifully, >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first >line of this article: > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm > >reads as follows: > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather >than, >as is common, being class-based." > >-jaredn > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dynapi-Dev mailing list >Dyn...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. |
|
From: Raymond S. <dst...@or...> - 2001-01-30 05:53:35
|
Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > Amen brother! > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our software is to be > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check the > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on statistics > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > Mike Ellis > > -----Original Message----- > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > Next generation ??? > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another generation > of the API. > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it makes common > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and bug > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > Flame away !!!! > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > >To: <dyn...@li...> > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > >beautifully, > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first > >line of this article: > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm > > > >reads as follows: > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > >than, > >as is common, being class-based." > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > >Dyn...@li... > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
|
From: Cameron H. <ca...@bi...> - 2001-01-30 10:03:08
|
It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are using MSIE 1.x ;-) I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > -----Original Message----- > From: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > Smith > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > To: <dyn...@li...> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > Amen brother! > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > software is to > be > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check > the > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > statistics > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > To: dyn...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > generation > > of the API. > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > makes common > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and > bug > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > class-like > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > >beautifully, > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > different > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > number > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the > first > > >line of this article: > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con tents.htm > > > >reads as follows: > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > >than, > >as is common, being class-based." > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > >Dyn...@li... > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list Dyn...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Michael P. <mp...@ph...> - 2001-01-30 13:03:28
|
from memory, two words: NO TABLES Cameron Hart wrote: > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are using MSIE > 1.x ;-) > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dyn...@li... > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > > Smith > > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > > To: dyn...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to > > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found > > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > > To: <dyn...@li...> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > Amen brother! > > > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > > software is to > > be > > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check > > the > > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > > statistics > > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > > generation > > > of the API. > > > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > > makes common > > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and > > bug > > > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > > class-like > > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > > >beautifully, > > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > > different > > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > > number > > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the > > first > > > >line of this article: > > > > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con > tents.htm > > > > > >reads as follows: > > > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > > >than, > > >as is common, being class-based." > > > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > >Dyn...@li... > > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev -- Michael Pemberton mp...@ph... ICQ: 12107010 |
|
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-01-30 15:25:24
|
that's not 'in the world' All stats on that site are from visiter to that site, and represent ONLY visiters to that site. Not the world. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Hart" <ca...@bi...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:59 AM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are using MSIE > 1.x ;-) > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dyn...@li... > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > > Smith > > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > > To: dyn...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to > > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found > > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > > To: <dyn...@li...> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > Amen brother! > > > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > > software is to > > be > > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check > > the > > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > > statistics > > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > > generation > > > of the API. > > > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > > makes common > > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and > > bug > > > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > > class-like > > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > > >beautifully, > > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > > different > > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > > number > > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the > > first > > > >line of this article: > > > > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con > tents.htm > > > > > >reads as follows: > > > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > > >than, > > >as is common, being class-based." > > > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > >Dyn...@li... > > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Cameron H. <ca...@bi...> - 2001-01-30 15:46:38
|
i'm well aware of that doug. i don't think my earlier statement really required close examination (i.e. it was meant to be a joke)... > -----Original Message----- > From: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Doug Melvin > Sent: 30 January 2001 18:23 > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > that's not 'in the world' > All stats on that site are from visiter to that site, and > represent ONLY visiters to that site. > Not the world. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cameron Hart" <ca...@bi...> > To: <dyn...@li...> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:59 AM > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are > using MSIE > > 1.x ;-) > > > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dyn...@li... > > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > > > Smith > > > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They > date back to > > > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have > found > > > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > > > To: <dyn...@li...> > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > > > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > > Amen brother! > > > > > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect > nor > > > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > > > software is to > > > be > > > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable > about > > > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, > check > > > the > > > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > > > statistics > > > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like > us and are > > > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in > all browsers > > > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO > they take > a > > > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > > > generation > > > > of the API. > > > > > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond > my control) > so > > > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > > > makes common > > > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) > and > > > bug > > > > > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > > > class-like > > > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > > > >beautifully, > > > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > > > different > > > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least > be > > > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like > behavior. > > > > > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > > > number > > > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape > says, the > > > first > > > > >line of this article: > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con > > tents.htm > > > > > > > >reads as follows: > > > > > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on > prototypes, rather > > > >than, > > > >as is common, being class-based." > > > > > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > > >Dyn...@li... > > > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > > Dyn...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: GORTSILAS A. <ag...@si...> - 2001-01-30 07:17:47
|
Yes but.... the CORE must be good enough to support all those users (and their requests)... That's why I beleive that a good object model in the core will help (A LOT) this task!!! What Pascal recommends (for example the DynObject) I think is necessary! I beleive that especially this one is obvious!!! We need strong core lib (and flexible) in order to accomplishe the DynAPI it's purpose! I agree that documentation is a MUST also... I am also new tp DynAPI and it was difficult to me with out Pascal's documentation... Andreas Gortsilas -----Original Message----- From: David Gerding - Columbia College Chicago [mailto:dge...@po...] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:23 PM To: dyn...@li... Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation As a complete newcomer to DynApi, I'm a little reluctant to speak up. But since I'm a professor considering whether or not "evangelize" DynApi to our undergraduate class of over 300 interactive media designers, maybe a different perspective is worth something to those of you who have worked so hard to make DynApi. PLEASE don't do a major object model overhaul. The current model seems sufficient. If your goal is to get DynApi widely adopted then stabilizing the core and working on cross-platform compatibility seem the top priority. For instance, the new documentation in the latest release is a godsend. Now I can work my way through learning this thing in a logical manner. I look forward to helping develop the project in some way in the future. But first, I need to learn and understand it. I've got a lot of hope about this project. Thank you all for your efforts, and thanks for listening. Dave Gerding Columbia College Chicago p.s. has anyone contacted opera software directly about actively joining the development effort? It would seem to be in their interest to do so... just another thought. -----Original Message----- From: dyn...@li... [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Pascal Bestebroer Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:14 PM To: dyn...@li... Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? what? how? The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems where possible) Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a DynObject might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would make it possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are not visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used in all other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and rocks on that one) I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" DynAPI would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, at least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread. Pascal Bestebroer pa...@dy... http://www.dynamic-core.net > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi 'IlMaestro' > Ministral > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API > with additional complexities does not result in a better > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger ) > interface, then I'm against it. > > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has > to be properly programmed, but that's enough. > > > Henrik Våglin wrote: > > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion > on what they are: > > > > OO is the model. > > OOM is the method. > > OOP is the technique. > > > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for > more unconditional extensability that is the default of > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional > class inheriting technique. > > > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more > - the designers. Consider the folloowing... > > > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a > real API, not a programming semi-language! > > > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more). > > > > Henrik Våglin [ hv...@ya... ] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list Dyn...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list Dyn...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Eytan H. <ey...@tr...> - 2001-01-30 08:32:49
|
Ok, so now we have all discussed and recommended and finished throwing stones. After we all got in-depth about OO and prototypes and classes where are we going. My recommendation of how to act is as such: * Create a DynLayer(mayber change it's name) that is totally seprate and stand alone. It includes only methods to affect the layer and events that are triggered from the outside(mouse and keyboard events). * Create the basic objects: Application, Object, Component Application: Manages the DynLayers focus and events Object: Basic object with create and destroy Component: Basic object with dynlayer. I'd be glad to change the model if anyone has new and improved ideas. Now except for the actual model I want to know if we have enough ppl who want a next generation to continue. 8an |
|
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-01-30 15:23:53
|
I vote for a 'modified' 'object model. My main concern is for an object that can delete itself effectively. Also, the base Layer Object should be just that, BASIC. A small and simple as possible. An icon in the top left corner of you web page. Which does nothing more than just sit at the top left corner of your webpage uses a very small fraction of the functionality currently built into the DynLayer object. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eytan Heidingsfeld" <ey...@tr...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:31 AM Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation part II > Ok, so now we have all discussed and recommended and finished throwing > stones. After we all got in-depth about OO and prototypes and classes where > are we going. My recommendation of how to act is as such: > * Create a DynLayer(mayber change it's name) that is totally seprate and > stand alone. It includes only methods to affect the layer and events that > are triggered from the outside(mouse and keyboard events). > * Create the basic objects: Application, Object, Component > Application: > Manages the DynLayers focus and events > Object: > Basic object with create and destroy > Component: > Basic object with dynlayer. > > I'd be glad to change the model if anyone has new and improved ideas. > > Now except for the actual model I want to know if we have enough ppl who > want a next generation to continue. > > 8an > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: <hv...@ya...> - 2001-01-30 12:01:01
|
--- Cameron Hart <ca...@bi...> skrev: > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the > world are using MSIE > 1.x ;-) > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > Yep - and it wasn't a pretty sight. It was based on Mosaic and meant for use with Microsofts big project MSN online which was to be the dominating computer network. We all know how that turned out, don't we... ;) Henrik Våglin [ hv...@ya... ] ===== // Henrik Vaglin ************************************************** Visit my comics artpage at http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/hvaglin?d&.flabel=fld5&.src=bc ************************************************** __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Michael E. <Mic...@il...> - 2001-01-30 16:51:27
|
Sorry folks, you have to sign up for a subscription to get the latest stats. You're correct, the sample report is dated! Mike -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Smith [mailto:dst...@or...] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 22:50 To: dyn...@li... Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > Amen brother! > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our software is to be > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check the > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on statistics > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > Mike Ellis > > -----Original Message----- > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > Next generation ??? > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another generation > of the API. > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it makes common > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and bug > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > Flame away !!!! > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > >To: <dyn...@li...> > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > >beautifully, > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first > >line of this article: > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm > > > >reads as follows: > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > >than, > >as is common, being class-based." > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > >Dyn...@li... > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
|
From: Michael E. <Mic...@il...> - 2001-01-30 17:23:41
|
Just to further clarify... Doug and Raymond's statement are correct. The www.statmarket.com is much broader based... they collect the stats from anyone using 'HitBox'. There daily sample is supposed to be based on around 50,000,000 hits. Unfortunately the free report uses old sample data, and the subscriptions/custom demographic reports aren't cheap (about $950/report, I don't even know what they charge for a full subscription). This is a list of the browsers/platforms that most of our domestic customers need supported (this may differ for your clients needs. Please feel free to flame me on this, I don't pretend to have the answers... just a starting point): Windows: IE 4.1 (SP1) IE 5.0 IE 5.5 NS 4.08 NS 4.76 NS 6.0 Mac: IE 5.0 (Ugly, I know) NS 4.08 NS 6.0 Maybe it would make sense for someone in charge of the site to see about a ASP/strategic alliance (link) with an organization that provides good statistics. It would certianly help educate us, and lend an air of credability to our cross platform/cross browser code premise. Then again, setting up these relationships is usually a pain in the ass. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Doug Melvin [mailto:do...@cr...] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:23 To: dyn...@li... Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation that's not 'in the world' All stats on that site are from visiter to that site, and represent ONLY visiters to that site. Not the world. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Hart" <ca...@bi...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:59 AM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are using MSIE > 1.x ;-) > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dyn...@li... > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > > Smith > > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > > To: dyn...@li... > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to > > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have found > > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > > To: <dyn...@li...> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > Amen brother! > > > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect nor > > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > > software is to > > be > > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable about > > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, check > > the > > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > > statistics > > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take a > > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > > generation > > > of the API. > > > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) so > > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > > makes common > > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) and > > bug > > > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > > class-like > > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > > >beautifully, > > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > > different > > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be > > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. > > > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > > number > > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the > > first > > > >line of this article: > > > > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con > tents.htm > > > > > >reads as follows: > > > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > > >than, > > >as is common, being class-based." > > > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > >Dyn...@li... > > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-01-30 18:22:54
|
Not a bad idea. I will look into such an association for www.AllTheWhile.com (my other company) I'll let y'all know how that goes.. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > Just to further clarify... Doug and Raymond's statement are correct. The > www.statmarket.com is much broader based... they collect the stats from > anyone using 'HitBox'. There daily sample is supposed to be based on around > 50,000,000 hits. Unfortunately the free report uses old sample data, and the > subscriptions/custom demographic reports aren't cheap (about $950/report, I > don't even know what they charge for a full subscription). > > This is a list of the browsers/platforms that most of our domestic customers > need supported (this may differ for your clients needs. Please feel free to > flame me on this, I don't pretend to have the answers... just a starting > point): > > Windows: > > IE 4.1 (SP1) > IE 5.0 > IE 5.5 > > NS 4.08 > NS 4.76 > NS 6.0 > > Mac: > > IE 5.0 (Ugly, I know) > NS 4.08 > NS 6.0 > > Maybe it would make sense for someone in charge of the site to see about a > ASP/strategic alliance (link) with an organization that provides good > statistics. It would certianly help educate us, and lend an air of > credability to our cross platform/cross browser code premise. Then again, > setting up these relationships is usually a pain in the ass. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Melvin [mailto:do...@cr...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:23 > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > that's not 'in the world' > All stats on that site are from visiter to that site, and > represent ONLY visiters to that site. > Not the world. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cameron Hart" <ca...@bi...> > To: <dyn...@li...> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 1:59 AM > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > It is quite frightening to know that 5 people in the world are using MSIE > > 1.x ;-) > > > > I mean, has anyone even seen IE 1??? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dyn...@li... > > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Raymond > > > Smith > > > Sent: 30 January 2001 05:50 > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > Carefull if your using the "sample stats" from there. They date back to > > > 1999 and reflect an older reality. Most recent browser stats I have > found > > > are at www.thecounter.com. From October 2000. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Michael Ellis" <Mic...@il...> > > > To: <dyn...@li...> > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM > > > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > > Amen brother! > > > > > > > > No argument here... Although we can be educated to, we cannot expect > nor > > > > demand which platform/browser our end-users choose. If our > > > software is to > > > be > > > > taken seriously, and serve a broad community we must be reasonable > about > > > > which platforms/browsers we support. If you think I'm full of it, > check > > > the > > > > browser/platform statistics at www.statmarket.com (don't rely on > > > statistics > > > > gathered by developer forums, they attract developers like us and are > > > > typically not representative of our products end-users). > > > > > > > > Mike Ellis > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: .:: OCB ::. [mailto:oc...@ho...] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:15 > > > > To: dyn...@li... > > > > Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > > > > > > > Next generation ??? > > > > > > > > Would it not be a good idea to get the DynApi2 working in all browsers > > > > (basic methods, moveTo, event handlers etc; not wigits, IMO they take > a > > > > backseat to basic functionality) before even discussing another > > > generation > > > > of the API. > > > > > > > > I haven't contributed anything in months (which is beyond my control) > so > > > > feel quite apprehensive about posting this but again, IMO, it > > > makes common > > > > sense to get the basic's of this project crossbrowser (NN6 included) > and > > > bug > > > > > > > > free before launching into another generation of the API. > > > > > > > > Flame away !!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jared Nuzzolillo" <ja...@aa...> > > > > >Reply-To: dyn...@li... > > > > >To: <dyn...@li...> > > > > >Subject: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:41 -0500 > > > > > > > > > >I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement > > > class-like > > > > >inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. > > > > > > > > > >I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works > > > > >beautifully, > > > > >and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a > > > different > > > > >type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least > be > > > > >familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like > behavior. > > > > > > > > > >It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in > > > number > > > > >objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. > > > > > > > > > >As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the > > > first > > > > >line of this article: > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/con > > tents.htm > > > > > > > >reads as follows: > > > > > > > >"JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather > > > >than, > > > >as is common, being class-based." > > > > > > > >-jaredn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > > >Dyn...@li... > > > >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > > Dyn...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Jared N. <ja...@aa...> - 2001-01-29 16:49:23
|
I have a feeling that certain people are wanting to implement class-like inheritance because it is more familiar/comfortable to them. I strongly agree with Pascal. Prototype-based inheritance works beautifully, and is native to javascript, so why would we want to enforce a different type of inheritance to use the API? Most dynapi users will at least be familiar with javascript, and may be expecting Prototype-like behavior. It's kind of like creating a number class instead of using built in number objects and primitive types. It's pointeless. As far as the class/prototype argument as to what Netscape says, the first line of this article: http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsobj/contents.htm reads as follows: "JavaScript is an object-oriented language based on prototypes, rather than, as is common, being class-based." -jaredn |
|
From: <hv...@ya...> - 2001-01-29 17:27:57
|
About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion on what = they are: OO is the model. OOM is the method. OOP is the technique. Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's unnecessary = to create a more classbased structure of what is essentially a merge of = prototyping and class-inheritance (ie DynAPI). It's merely a question of = approach wheter to use prototyping - which is more towards experimental = development - or class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to = allow for more unconditional extensability that is the default of = javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional class = inheriting technique.=20 Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who are more = designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only reason to make = DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract more OOP developers = (who generally are more used to class-inheritencing tools), which of = course would be great for development, but distracts more from those who = need the API more - the designers. Consider the folloowing...=20 Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. There's = enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. I also think = Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with their new .NET = structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is part of. Is DynAPI OO = (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote for keeping DynAPI structure = developing as it is and remain a real API, not a programming = semi-language! My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A OO DynAPI = might instead be bringing design enhancement for programmers to = comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and focus more on = different users, but of course all kind of exchange of knowledge is a = good thing - so also keep a symbiotic relationship between the two (and = maybe designers and developers will come to understand eachothers = expertise areas more). Henrik V=E5glin [ hv...@ya... ] _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Jordi 'I. M. <jmi...@or...> - 2001-01-29 18:59:49
|
In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API with additional complexities does not result in a better cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger ) interface, then I'm against it. Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has to be properly programmed, but that's enough. Henrik Våglin wrote: > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion on what they are: > > OO is the model. > OOM is the method. > OOP is the technique. > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for more unconditional extensability that is the default of javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional class inheriting technique. > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract more OOP developers (who generally are more used to class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for development, but distracts more from those who need the API more - the designers. Consider the folloowing... > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a real API, not a programming semi-language! > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more). > > Henrik Våglin [ hv...@ya... ] > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Pascal B. <pa...@dy...> - 2001-01-29 19:15:00
|
And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? what? how? The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems where possible) Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a DynObject might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would make it possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are not visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used in all other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and rocks on that one) I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" DynAPI would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, at least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread. Pascal Bestebroer pa...@dy... http://www.dynamic-core.net > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi 'IlMaestro' > Ministral > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API > with additional complexities does not result in a better > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger ) > interface, then I'm against it. > > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has > to be properly programmed, but that's enough. > > > Henrik Våglin wrote: > > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion > on what they are: > > > > OO is the model. > > OOM is the method. > > OOP is the technique. > > > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for > more unconditional extensability that is the default of > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional > class inheriting technique. > > > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more > - the designers. Consider the folloowing... > > > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a > real API, not a programming semi-language! > > > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more). > > > > Henrik Våglin [ hv...@ya... ] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > |
|
From: David G. - C. C. C. <dge...@po...> - 2001-01-29 20:23:37
|
As a complete newcomer to DynApi, I'm a little reluctant to speak up. But since I'm a professor considering whether or not "evangelize" DynApi to our undergraduate class of over 300 interactive media designers, maybe a different perspective is worth something to those of you who have worked so hard to make DynApi. PLEASE don't do a major object model overhaul. The current model seems sufficient. If your goal is to get DynApi widely adopted then stabilizing the core and working on cross-platform compatibility seem the top priority. For instance, the new documentation in the latest release is a godsend. Now I can work my way through learning this thing in a logical manner. I look forward to helping develop the project in some way in the future. But first, I need to learn and understand it. I've got a lot of hope about this project. Thank you all for your efforts, and thanks for listening. Dave Gerding Columbia College Chicago p.s. has anyone contacted opera software directly about actively joining the development effort? It would seem to be in their interest to do so... just another thought. -----Original Message----- From: dyn...@li... [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Pascal Bestebroer Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:14 PM To: dyn...@li... Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? what? how? The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems where possible) Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a DynObject might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would make it possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are not visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used in all other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and rocks on that one) I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" DynAPI would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, at least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread. Pascal Bestebroer pa...@dy... http://www.dynamic-core.net > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi 'IlMaestro' > Ministral > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07 > Aan: dyn...@li... > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API > with additional complexities does not result in a better > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger ) > interface, then I'm against it. > > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has > to be properly programmed, but that's enough. > > > Henrik Våglin wrote: > > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion > on what they are: > > > > OO is the model. > > OOM is the method. > > OOP is the technique. > > > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for > more unconditional extensability that is the default of > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional > class inheriting technique. > > > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more > - the designers. Consider the folloowing... > > > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a > real API, not a programming semi-language! > > > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more). > > > > Henrik Våglin [ hv...@ya... ] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list Dyn...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
|
From: Doug M. <do...@cr...> - 2001-01-29 20:27:46
|
----- Original Message -----=20 From: "David Gerding - Columbia College Chicago" = <dge...@po...> To: <dyn...@li...> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > As a complete newcomer to DynApi, I'm a little reluctant to speak up. = But > since I'm a professor considering whether or not "evangelize" DynApi = to our > undergraduate class of over 300 interactive media designers, maybe a > different perspective is worth something to those of you who have = worked so > hard to make DynApi. This is a VERY good thing.. It could lead to wide-spread commercial = acceptance of DynAPI as a tool > PLEASE don't do a major object model overhaul. The current model = seems > sufficient. If your goal is to get DynApi widely adopted then = stabilizing > the core and working on cross-platform compatibility seem the top = priority. Agreed! > For instance, the new documentation in the latest release is a = godsend. Now > I can work my way through learning this thing in a logical manner. Let's hear it for Documentation!!! =20 > I look forward to helping develop the project in some way in the = future. > But first, I need to learn and understand it. >=20 > I've got a lot of hope about this project. Thank you all for your = efforts, > and thanks for listening. >=20 > Dave Gerding > Columbia College Chicago >=20 > p.s. has anyone contacted opera software directly about actively = joining the > development effort? It would seem to be in their interest to do so... = just > another thought. And a very valid thought indeed! Robert? Pascal? > -----Original Message----- > From: dyn...@li... > [mailto:dyn...@li...]On Behalf Of Pascal > Bestebroer > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:14 PM > To: dyn...@li... > Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation >=20 >=20 > And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? = what? > how? >=20 > The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems = where > possible) >=20 > Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a = DynObject > might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would = make it > possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are = not > visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used = in all > other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and = rocks > on that one) >=20 > I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" = DynAPI > would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, = at > least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Pascal Bestebroer > pa...@dy... > http://www.dynamic-core.net >=20 > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: dyn...@li... > > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Jordi = 'IlMaestro' > > Ministral > > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07 > > Aan: dyn...@li... > > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation > > > > > > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current > > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to > > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming > > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science > > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API > > with additional complexities does not result in a better > > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger ) > > interface, then I'm against it. > > > > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and > > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be > > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has > > to be properly programmed, but that's enough. > > > > > > Henrik V=E5glin wrote: > > > > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion > > on what they are: > > > > > > OO is the model. > > > OOM is the method. > > > OOP is the technique. > > > > > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's > > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is > > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie > > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use > > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or > > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for > > more unconditional extensability that is the default of > > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional > > class inheriting technique. > > > > > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who > > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only > > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract > > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to > > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for > > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more > > - the designers. Consider the folloowing... > > > > > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. > > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. > > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with > > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is > > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote > > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a > > real API, not a programming semi-language! > > > > > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A > > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for > > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and > > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange > > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic > > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers > > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more). > > > > > > Henrik V=E5glin [ hv...@ya... ] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > > Dyn...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > > Dyn...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > Dyn...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X