Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

Michael Wojcik wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
>> Let's get beyond this. Beyond the basic language and problems
>> of its use and get to somethings interesting:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps
>
> That would require using Google Groups, so as far as I'm concerned
> it's right out.
>
> I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
> programs just because they're "large" or "interesting"; if they're
> *that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
> presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
> definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
> the purpose.

"lorlarz" appears to be a bit of an ass, but, just so you're aware of
it, Google Groups (of the non-USENET class) can be accessed as
straightforward mailing lists, rather than via the web. So you shouldn't
rule something out based solely on dislike of the Google Groups interface.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

On Aug 25, 1:24*pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Michael Wojcik wrote:
> > lorlarz wrote:
> >> Let's get beyond this. *Beyond the basic language and problems
> >> of its use and get to somethings interesting:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps
>
> > That would require using Google Groups, so as far as I'm concerned
> > it's right out.
>
> > I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
> > programs just because they're "large" or "interesting"; if they're
> > *that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
> > presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
> > definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
> > the purpose.
>
> "lorlarz" appears to be a bit of an ass, but, just so you're aware of
> it, Google Groups (of the non-USENET class) can be accessed as
> straightforward mailing lists, rather than via the web. So you shouldn't
> rule something out based solely on dislike of the Google Groups interface..
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> * "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
> their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
> suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
> become full of /Pooh./"
> * *-- Frederick Crews. *"Postmodern Pooh", Preface

Thanks John.
Indeed, once you go to the site, just click "more info" for the
email address. Also, if you join, you can get posting or
a digest via email. (BTW, I have now given up being an ass.)

John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> "lorlarz" appears to be a bit of an ass, but, just so you're aware of
> it, Google Groups (of the non-USENET class) can be accessed as
> straightforward mailing lists, rather than via the web. So you shouldn't
> rule something out based solely on dislike of the Google Groups interface.

I'm not keen to subscribe to more mailing lists, either. And my
dislike of Google Groups is partly on principle - they've added a fair
bit of noise to Usenet and caused even more confusion among the
newbies. We really didn't need Google taking the Eternal September
torch from AOL.

Thanks for the tip, though.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

lorlarz wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:38 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> lorlarz wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why I'd need or want another forum to discuss ECMAScript
>> programs just because they're "large" or "interesting"; if they're
>> *that* interesting, they'll probably be appearing in a conference
>> presentation or publication or the like. But in any case, I'm
>> definitely not going to use the asinine interface of Google Groups for
>> the purpose.
>
> I know may academics think like you do. Many others do not.

How many academics do you know?

Out of curiosity, what does my standing as an "academic" (or, more
likely, your presumption about it) have to do with how you think I think?

Let me guess: you're making some vapid generalization about either my
thought processes or my opinion on some matter (Google Groups? the
need for a forum for ECMAScript programs? how interesting ideas are
disseminated?), from some inane stereotype you hold about "academics",
based solely in the appearance of the phrase "Michigan State
University" in my signature.

I might also note the likelihood that the statement "many academics
agree with X, and many do not" is true for a rather large set of
propositions X, so it's hard to see why it would be an interesting
observation.

> I would encourage everyone to read the first 6 or so posts
> to the http://groups.google.com/group/realcomplangjsapps group
> to see that there is a rationale for such a group.

I just did. I still don't see what it offers over c.l.javascript and
other existing venues, besides a lousy interface.

If it provides something for you, that's fine by me; but I don't see
that it offers anything I want and don't already have.

lorlarz wrote:
<snip>
> Let me describe one of the more elaborate and fun (and useful
> and interactive and multifaceted) JavaScript programs I have
> seen, just to give you a sense of how few limitations there
> really are on JavaScript for program making.
>
> I might as well say who did the program and where it can be
> found, right up front. The maze I will describe was built
> with functions via programs from the book, The Art and Science
> of JavaScript by Adams, Edwards, Heilmann, Mahemhoff, Pehlivanian,
> Webb, Willison (Sitepoint , 2008) Anyhow, this PURELY JavaScript
> program allows a user to walk through a very large maze, and
> at each step the user can look right and left (and sometimes
> straight ahead) and see a different jpeg or gif (or embed).

So it is a navigation system.

> Thus, the program can be used, for example, an art display
> vehicle OR a walk through history, etc., etc., etc.,

A navigation system.

> (The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
> grass, walls).)

Extremes of "satisfactory"?

> Now that is not only many steps and much interactivity,
> producing the "product" a user wants BUT the uses for it
> are amazing and highly variable.

What is this "product" in that case? It is an experience; a
planned/semi-guided navigation through a collection of graphical
presentations. Computer program "product" tends towards being intangible
but pure experiences is considerably less tangible than, say, something
like an image file.

In principle, an identical "product" can be achieved with something as
simple as a series of HTML pages congaing an image elements and a list
of hyperlinks to other pages in the sequence. And achieved with no
'programming' at all, just a designed set of declarations.

It also means that any scripted menu system (tree, drop-down or
whatever) satisfies the same requirements for being considered a
"program", despite you dismissing just such an example as "not a
program" and as "just script kiddie stuff".

<snip>
> This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)

Degrees of "universally useful"? I would have thought "universally
useful" would be an absolute condition; either satisfied by any specific
example or not. In this case not.

> javascript programs I have seen.

But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
recognise them even if you had seen them.

Richard.

On Aug 26, 9:02*am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
>
> >This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)
[snip]
> > javascript programs I have seen.
>
> But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
> is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
> recognise them even if you had seen them.
>
> Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
want.
Get the code download:
http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding0

On Aug 26, 9:02*am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
[snip]
> > This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)
[snip]
> > javascript programs I have seen.
>
> But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
> is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
> recognise them even if you had seen them.
>
> Richard.

Well, look: http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
poing
along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
somewhere in that maze example).
Get the code download:
http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/

I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
common yet useful understanding).

On Aug 26, 10:14*am, lorlarz <lorl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:02*am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > lorlarz wrote:
> [snip]
> > > This is one of the most cool (and very universally useful)
> [snip]
> > > javascript programs I have seen.
>
> > But you seem to be having as much trouble determining what a "program"
> > is as you have perceiving what javascript is. So probably you would not
> > recognise them even if you had seen them.
>
> > Richard.
>
> Well, look:http://www.brothercake.com/games/und...derground.html
> It is nice and most people who are not mean or a bit nuts would
> see it as a program. It interacts with you and gives you a 'product'
> you want. It does not show how you can put pics or embeds at any
> poing
> along the wall, but you can (actually, he may have placed a pic
> somewhere in that maze example).
> Get the code download:http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/reference/3d/
>
> I have studied all major JavaScript books in English since
> 1999 and all along I have made programs (term used in the
> common yet useful understanding).

P.S. I have built a couple of addons to Dan Webb's great
maze program. See: http://mynichecomputing.com/maze/maze.html
and you will see a link, "Open guide in a separate small window".
This addon shows the maze. I also made an addon to help
teachers place the gifs, jpegs, and embeds automatically
at different locations along the walls.
Dan Webb himself provides a "builder" to build different
mazes. There is now a complete kit available to teachers.

By the way, the new google group on javascript applications
now has an additional web page describing it:
http://mynichecomputing.com/rcljsapps/

Richard Cornford wrote:
> lorlarz wrote:
>
>> (The graphics are amazingly satisfactory (sky, clouds,
>> grass, walls).)
>
> Extremes of "satisfactory"?

Perhaps "amazingly" was meant to modify "are": it is amazing that the
graphics are satisfactory.

I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
rare experience.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

Michael Wojcik wrote on 27 aug 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I know *I'm* usually amazed when software is satisfactory. It's such a
> rare experience.
>

How usually you experience such rare experiences?

Please don't blame it on satisfaction.

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