Help Jquery: unable to register a ready function

Conrad Lender wrote:
<snip>
> On 2008-11-05 22:27, David Mark wrote:
>>> Perhaps so, but where *is* all that pre-written and
>>> tested code?
>>
>> These discussions always devolve into a demand for
>> "pre-written and tested" code. To have pre-written
>> code, you have to have written some code at some time
>> that is re-usable.
>
> So, to build a nice, dynamic site one has to build up a
> collection of tried-and-tested cross-browser functions first.

That is certainly one way of doing it.

> Of course, getting to know all the little gotchas will take
> years,

No it doesn't. The first thing to learn is how to accurately pin down
the cause and effect relationships behind the "little gotchas". With
enough effort put in, and sufficient critical (and I mean critical)
feed-back, that should not take more than a month of two. After that the
cycle of handling each browser issue encountered is relatively short,
and in practice you only have to handle issues as they arise, and if
done property the first time, once only.

> but that's okay, as long as
> you don't use a library.
> Every other language has its libraries and module archives;

And very few of them have deployment/distribution issues that are
inherit with javascript.

> but we're
> different. We're building it all ourselves.

Building up your own "collection of tried-and-tested cross-browser
functions" and writing them all yourself are not the same thing.

> Because the library writers
> are all "incompetent".
<snip>

That is a pity, isn't it. Have you wondered how it could be that the
world could contain competent browser scripters and yet it is the near
novices who set about designing/writing the general purpose libraries?

Richard.

On Nov 5, 5:34*pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, until you
> decide to skip the insults and at least pretend to be civil. The
> constant digs at the "incompetence" of JQuery and its author are also
> getting old, and don't need any further comments. But this does:
>
> On 2008-11-05 22:27, David Mark wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps so, but where *is* all that pre-written and tested code?
>
> > These discussions always devolve into a demand for "pre-written and
> > tested" code. *To have pre-written code, you have to have written
> > some code at some time that is re-usable.
>
> So, to build a nice, dynamic site one has to build up a collection of
> tried-and-tested cross-browser functions first. Of course, getting to
> know all the little gotchas will take years, but that's okay, as long as
> you don't use a library.
> Every other language has its libraries and module archives; but we're
> different. We're building it all ourselves. Because the library writers
> are all "incompetent".
>
> >> would very much like to know where to find it.
>
> > Didn't we just have this discussion?
>
> If you're hinting at your own library (again), I'll have to reply
> (again) that without a Free Software license it's not much use for most
> people. If we're following the previous pattern, this is the point where
> you get angry with me.
>
> >http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/fea...e-of-the-art-b...
>
> > (though the CSS seems to be malfunctioning!)
>
> It's not:http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/omg...-is-old-school
>
> Great idea, btw.
>
> * - Conrad

On Nov 5, 5:34*pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you, until you
> decide to skip the insults and at least pretend to be civil. The

I don't care what you do. Do you really think I am interested in your
views about feature detection?

> constant digs at the "incompetence" of JQuery and its author are also
> getting old, and don't need any further comments. But this does:

Old to you perhaps. Maybe because you are constantly bringing up that
miserable script.

>
> On 2008-11-05 22:27, David Mark wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps so, but where *is* all that pre-written and tested code?
>
> > These discussions always devolve into a demand for "pre-written and
> > tested" code. *To have pre-written code, you have to have written
> > some code at some time that is re-usable.
>
> So, to build a nice, dynamic site one has to build up a collection of
> tried-and-tested cross-browser functions first. Of course, getting to

Certainly helps.

> know all the little gotchas will take years, but that's okay, as long as
> you don't use a library.

Same old bullshit. All or nothing. Black or white. Pardon my
French, but what the fuck is wrong with you?

> Every other language has its libraries and module archives; but we're

What do archives have to do with anything?

> different. We're building it all ourselves. Because the library writers
> are all "incompetent".

You just don't get it. General-purpose browser scripting libraries
are largely a stupid idea. The more general they are, the more
problems they try to solve, the worse they get. Several have engaged
in an "arms race" over the last few years to be the ultimate, way-cool
Ajax library. They all use browser sniffing to include features that
can never work on the Web and then add the caveat that it only "works"
with four browsers (they conveniently forget to mention that it will
likely blow up in everything else.) Poor Web Trash.

>
> >> would very much like to know where to find it.
>
> > Didn't we just have this discussion?
>
> If you're hinting at your own library (again), I'll have to reply

I am "hinting" at the fact that we just discussed this topic. I have
never, nor will I ever, pushed my library in here. That would be
pretty silly as, for one, the online builder is still a Beta. For
two, ever since I put that thing up, I am way to busy for such charity
work. Such is the way of the world.

> (again) that without a Free Software license it's not much use for most

LOL. I knew it. Tell me, why should I give any part of it to you for
free? Not just you in particular, but any average rude and
aggravating free-loader.

> people. If we're following the previous pattern, this is the point where
> you get angry with me.

You couldn't be more mistaken. Hey, I'm thinking friends for life.
What do you say?

>
> >http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/fea...e-of-the-art-b...
>
> > (though the CSS seems to be malfunctioning!)
>
> It's not:http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/omg...-is-old-school

Ah, I see.

>
> Great idea, btw.

For what?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

> Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
>> [...] The only thing that keeps me from considering you and Thomas Lahn
>> to be jQuery’s most effective – albeit somewhat unintentional –
>> ambassadors in this NG is having read its source code myself;
>> accidental readers are unlikely to share this advantage.
>
> That argument is fallacious as it is based on the false assumption that
> discussing the shortcomings of a piece of software attracts a majority of
> relevant users to exactly that software.

No it isn’t. It is based on the true assumption that name-calling for its
own sake serves no particular purpose other then egotainment (there’s
nothing wrong with that in the context of Usenet, as far as I am
concerned, but it is only amusing for people who are sufficiently
interested in the topic at hand already). It’s not only about what you
say, but how. And if you do not know that how you say something can have
the opposite effect on your environment, well, than I’d think that’s
lack of experience (David Mark has pointed out repeatedly that it is
lack of interest in his environment in his case, so I willingly take his
word on that).

If you like to know, last year I have been looking for convincing
(external) arguments against (the popular) general purpose libraries in
this NG and I couldn’t find any for the target audience. At least, not
in the broad sense, by – more or less – complete thread (‘the community
has spoken, professionally’). Just like in this thread, there’s usually
just Richard, very verbose, very accurate, very professional (which is
to say, sharp, but not ridiculous, and also very lonely at all of that),
and, implicitly, very expensive, or there would be more of the same
quality. And a lot of noise.

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

> Eric B. Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:

>> I *do* have one good thing to say about jQuery: I hate G2 much more.
>
> You hate something I have never heard of more than jQuery.

You could just stop posting until you know better, how about that?

>> Not? The only thing that keeps me from considering you and Thomas Lahn
>
> What does he have to do with it?

Sorry to throw you in the same basket. Apparently he isn’t too cheap to
consult a proper nntp server, my mistake, probably.

> Do you think he is the only other
> member of the group to question the competence of the jQuery project?

Oh no. The valuable information just didn’t originate from either of you.

> Perhaps you are reading a different newsgroup?

Now *that* is more interesting in more senses than you could ever
understand. And the answer is certainly yes.