| Re: How can i know the propery of a javascript object how can i see what object inclue [message #178947 is a reply to message #178946] |
Mon, 27 August 2012 01:28   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 8/26/2012 8:59 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 8/26/2012 11:42 AM, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 8/26/2012 9:46 AM, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>>> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> >> On 8/22/2012 6:36 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> >>> Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 8/22/2012 1:18 AM, sismaster wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> i want to know how can i see what object include in java script
>>>> >>>>>> and is
>>>> >>>>>> there any tool to see what object contains
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> >> And how can PHP see what objects are included in Javascript?
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually it can't. But Thomas didn't say so (please note the carets,
>>>> > which might not be aligned properly in the news reader, but are so in
>>>> > the source code of the message).
>>>> >
>>>> > Sincerely,
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> No, but that was the original question, wasn't it?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about that. In fact the OP didn't even mention PHP. Well,
>>> he posted on c.l.php, but it might well have been the wrong newsgroup. I
>>> *guess* the OP just wanted to know some way to inspect JS objects, what
>>> was already answered by Robert. But I may be wrong with this guess, as
>>> I'm no native English speaker (what's probably quite obvious).
>>>
>>
>> He posted in a PHP newsgroup, so my answer was in relation to PHP. If
>> he wanted something else, he should have been more clear (or posted in a
>> more appropriate newsgroup).
>>
>>
>>>> But Pointed Head did indicate I was wrong on two accounts. And you
>>>> haven't said anything to prove otherwise.
>>>
>>> Actually I've just answered the questions *you* had asked (even if the
>>> were rhetorical). I cannot prove neither of you right or wrong. The
>>> statement "PHP runs on the server; Javascript runs on the client." is
>>> not true in every case, even if it's typically true for PHP development.
>>> And I won't argue, if the name "Javascript" is correct in this context,
>>> or if one should use "ECMAScript" or point out that it's called
>>> "JScript" on IE.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. The question was real. How many browsers can run PHP code?
>
> *can*? AISB: at least all that implement the NPAPI, assuming that a PHP
> browser plugin *can* be (or already have been?) written.
>
Yes? And for just which browsers have those plugins been written? And
how many are in use?
We're not talking some theoretical possibility here. Please tell me how
I can run PHP on my browser TODAY. And which browser I can run it on.
Then let me know about how many other people in the world are doing that.
>> And
>> how many web servers actually run Javascript (I'm not counting wanna-be
>> developers who are running 50 hit/mo. sites out of their basement, where
>> 49 of those hits are from the site owner).
>
> See e.g. <http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/pl-js/all/all>.
> w3techs's only counting the top 1,000,000 sites. So currently 250 of
> the top million websites are running Javascript (assumably all of them
> have far more than 50 hits/mo.). And please note the trend: in 9 months
> the usage has doubled!
>
Yes, to quote:
"JavaScript is used by less than 0.1% of all the websites whose
server-side programming language we know." And, of course, they don't
know if the sites are actually USING server-side javascript. Only that
a plugin has been installed on the server.
But then that they have no real idea - it's just a guess. And even so,
the percentage is so low as to be immaterial. Let's see - 0.1% of 1M
sites - that means that *maybe* 1,000 have the plugin installed.
>>>> IOW, he just opened his fat trap to hear himself talk, as usual.
>>>
>>> I can't acknowledge that statement. ISTM Thomas has quite some knowledge
>>> about web development, and I have learned from him, as I have from you.
>>>
>>
>> Not in this group he isn't. And not in several other groups, where he's
>> also recognized as a troll.
>>
>>>> And, as usual, he's showing his ignorance (as are you).
>>>
>>> Would you have replied, if somebody had called you "Jerry Struggle",
>>> "stoopid" and "O great one"?
>>>
>>
>> I've been called worse. And by better people than you.
>
> My apologies, as it seems I have not expressed myself properly. I
> didn't mean to insult you in any way. This was merely meant as a
> "translation" (sorry, I'm lacking the appropriate word) of your reply to
> Thomas, which might have been appropriate as reply to a troll -- which
> IMHO Thomas isn't -- but every reader should decide for himself.
>
> And yes, I'm quite aware that there are better people than me. Thanks
> for reminding me.
>
You've expressed yourself quite well. No translation necessary.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]