[Klug-general] Interactive Websites

[Peter Childs]

My point was I think is that java is just as much an emulator as wine
it. Neither are.

Peter.

On 15/12/06, Karl Lattimer <karl at qdh.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > True the new feature like css and ajax make it better for the end user
> > > > but the developer still has to cope with 3 different browsers that
> > > > work complely different and use 2 different scripting languages
> > > > (Javascript and DHTML)
> > >
> > > WRONG! Javascript == DHTML Javascript puts the D in HTML
> >
> > Nope DHTML = Microsofts Idea of Javascript
> > Javascript = Mozillia, Netscape who created Javascipt orignally.
>
> Actually DHTML is a collective term, dynamic HTML, implies a way not a
> means, I should have made that clear, microsoft came up with activeX
> which can employ pretty much any windows library, vbscript which died
> quickly due to security crazyness. And finally the winner is ...
> JScript, which is microsofts implementation of javascript >their< way.
> This is half the problem with DHTML, however if you stick to the
> javascript standard not browser specific behaviour then you don't have
> problems generally.
>
> > But why could they not structure it in XML so that least you only had
> > to learn one way to structure a file!. I'm sure I could come up with a
> > DTD that would make an XML version capapble of doing EVERYTHING in
> > CSS. I expect you are not sure exactly how flexable XML really is.
>
> Think of CSS like this, a schema definition for XML, it applies a
> standard set of properties to an XML element there's also xslt and a
> bunch of other things starting with X which support xml and these are
> generally not in the slightest structured in xml.
>
> CSS is quirky but its important to define as you do for instance.
>
> .error .info .note {
>         font-size: 8px; /* or em */
> }
>
> .error {
>         color: #990000;
> }
>
> Its more like a C++ header file than a source file, its a bunch of
> properties which are PURELY related to style. XML would be difficult,
> this way is far easier and faster to process. It allows for inheritance,
> generalisation and polymorphism, which XML can't really do without over
> complicating the structure toward incoherence.
>
> > >
> > > > There are always more than 3 ways to do things and different one of
> > > > thouse 3 ways will work on a different client front end.
> > >
> > > You really are over-confusing what is a very simple situation, the only
> > > erroneous browser to the CSS/JS standards is internet explorer, and
> > > version 7 is much better at this.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately over 50% of the population use IE by not making you
> > application IE compliant to lose half you audience.
>
> Did you look at a list of incompatibilities before you discounted it?
> There really isn't a great deal of difference, the event handling is
> different, AJAX is done differently, but essentially everything is
> there.
>
> >
> > > > If you want to create a website that is going to work on every browser
> > > > since Netscape 2.2 and yet still use bleeding edge methods when they
> > > > are available you are out of luck.
> > >
> > > No, you're lazy and dumb. + The bleeding edge technology didn't exist in
> > > NS2.2
> >
> > What I mean is a website that works in NS2.2 but works better and uses
> > bleeding edge facilities when they are available ie in Firefox 2.
>
> I can do that easily! Thats what CSS is for, netscape <4 didn't support
> CSS at all (TMK), so you do the HTML layout, and the CSS does all of the
> styling and the javascript well if NS2.2 doesn't support the javascript
> version your code is in you can specify a fallback script which will
> provide some functionality for those browsers.
>
> But why on earth would you want to, putting a website online which
> doesn't work in NS2.2 or actually <latest-gen is irrelevant now, there
> are security issues with all previous generations which will burn the
> machines of any stragglers. They're malware infested hounds and you
> don't want them visiting, so fuck em.
>
> > You can't force you uses the latest browsers.
>
> Yes you fucking well can! and bloody well should! and that is all i have
> to say about that!
>
> > >
> > > > I like Dreamweaver its just a shame I can't get anyone to get me a
> > > > licence and its non Linux compatable unless I emulate which would
> > > > probably break the licence aggreement
> > >
> > > WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR!!!!!! FFS WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN THIS, ITS
> > > SERIOUSLY LIKE WATCHING PEOPLE SLAM SQUARE PEGS INTO ROUND HOLES. WINE
> > > DOES NOT EMULATE IT CREATES AN INTERMEDIATE COMPATIBILITY LAYER!!!!!
> > >
> >
> > I know that but most people will call it an emulator it works like
> > one, it feels like one, it even has the word in its name. Its an
> > internal technical issue that its not. It enables me to "emulate " a
> > windows environment using linux libraries therefore it is an emulator.
> > The fact that its more of a translator than an emulator is not the
> > point. To most people it emulates windows for linux there for people
> > will call it an emulator even if its not. Most people are not
> > interested in technical details they are interested in what it does
> > which is allows me to run windows program on linux and there for
> > "emulate" an environment they can run in. In fact Wine is just as much
> > an emulator as Java is but I've never yet heard people call Java an
> > emulator.
>
> Java is nothing like an emulator, java runs byte code, it is therefore
> more of an interpreter than an emulator and exists in its own special
> world called a virtual machine, java is essentially a theoretical
> processor that can be 'emulated' on any platform, more an object of
> emulation than an emulator itself. Virtual machines are another way of
> dealing with that whole situation, they aren't technically emulators
> they run the same stuff and do no instruction manipulation and that is
> where the sticking point is.
>
> How do you define the difference? well WINE people don't like wine being
> called an emulator, as you can probably tell, the reason for this is
> simple.
>
> Emulating a PSone on 32bit x86 requires about a 2GHz processor, and at
> least a GeForce2 for reasonable output. A PSone is spec'd at 33.9 MHz
> with 512 KB RAM and 8 MB Video RAM
>
> It performs so well under these specs, because
> 1) The machine code is native
> 2) the byte ordering is native
> 3) the OS is highly optimised firmware which provide no APIs only
> hardware interrupts and stuff n nonsense
> 4) everything is statically linked into a minuscule memory space
> 5) All video is done by a tuned specially designed graphics card
> 6) The system is adequately segmented to prevent the processor doing
> anything but logic and the basics, video doing video and so-on.
>
> The PC performs badly emulating because
> 1) It must translate the machine code 5% hit there already
> 2) The byte ordering is different, 10% hit easily
> 3-4) You're running a whole bigass operating system and dynamic library
> stack
> 6) Your PC is general purpose not designed specifically for this task
>
> Emulating hits the processor, memory and graphics hard. Wine doesn't,
> there is no difference in processor architecture. The reason wine is so
> strict about this is that the performance hit associated with emulators
> has also been associated with wine for no good reason.
>
> Emulation is by definition converting one machine code into another,
> don't confuse this with cloning or mimicking of an environment. Wine is
> good for linux because when microsoft starts to coast people need a
> migration path.
>
> Escrow
>
> This is where the money will be in 5-10 years.
>
>
> K,
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kent mailing list
> Kent at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/kent
>