I want to only block those lines of javascript on the site, and I only need to from this one browser. I tried looking for a greasemonkey script to base my script off of, but I've discovered that I don't know jack shit about javascript. It's all greek to me.
Any javascript people care to reveal the secret to me?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 20:53
Frames suck. Javascript hates them also.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 20:56
Javascript sucks. Disable it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:16
Javascript sucks sure there's an ebuild for Javascript but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:17
Lemme be more clear.
This will only be used on this one workstation, in firefox. And it needs to be a frames page for how it's all set up.
The site that is loaded in the frame needs to have javascript enabled, but to stay in that frame.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:36
parent.frames["framename"].location.href
or
parent.frames[index].location.href
and yes, frames suck, etc etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 3:03
A FRAME IS FINE TOO... not
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 9:23
in the frameset page: <script type="text/javascript">
frames.length=0;
</script>
>>11
the words "solution without a problem" come to mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 23:26
>>12
Really? It would seem like a simple and useful way to conserve bandwidth without resorting to javascript. Refreshing a whole page is plain retardation.
>>13
ever heard of frames? they do the same thing as iframes, but have been around a lot longer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 2:36
>>14
Frames are also supposed to be evil, remember?
they do the same thing as iframes
No, they don't. Is google too hard for you?
I still welcome a non-idiot who can explain why iframes suck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 5:05
because IE came up with it
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 9:00
No, they don't. Is google too hard for you?
okay, fine, iframes let you put a frame in a document without a frameset.
I still welcome a non-idiot who can explain why iframes suck.
it's like putting a td in a document without a table...
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 9:45
frames (and iframes) break the "one resource per window" scheme that the rest of the web uses. now you have to worry about link targets, it's impossible to give other people the url of any page except for finding out the url of the inner frame and just linking that. you're not going to save any significant amount of bandwidth on your stupid navbar by making the content of your page be in an iframe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 20:26
now you have to worry about link targets, it's impossible to give other people the url of any page except for finding out the url of the inner frame and just linking [snip]
So if I were to make some secure site that shouldn't be linked from outside anyway (say, a shopping cart), or make a webgame with an interface that doesn't completely suck (people sure are going to want to link to that expired game view of yours), this is stupid?
You realise that iframes give the audience a more responsive interface, instead of waiting for a page reload? Not everyone is on a ZOMG FAST OC3? It's simpler than implementing AJAX for anything that doesn't need that sort of power (and how are you going to link an AJAX state, hmm?)?
I realise the koolaid-swilling pedants want the rest of us to do things the One True Way, but I'll err on the side pragmatism. While the linking is a valid issue, that's like saying a hammer sucks because you can't remove screws with it. Bollocks on that.
Anyone else want to give a stab at it?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 20:35
>You realise that iframes give the audience a more responsive interface, instead of waiting for a page reload?
frames can do that, too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 21:19
frames can do that, too.
You might want to reread >>15.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 23:51
>>19
if you're so worried about bandwidth, then you're making html-bloated pages of failure anyway. the same problem you're trying to solve with frames can be done better with css and efficient code, without the side effects of fucking up your search engine rankings (unless you're actually smart enough to use <noframes> to your advantage) and the accessibility bullshit you'll encounter by using frames.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 0:39
>>22
...or even better: mixing CSS, efficient code, and iframes. What a concept! You seem to think that they're mutually exclusive! Hello?
I'd also like you to explain how you can only update part of a page with server-provided data without using AJAX or iframes. Completely reloading a page just adds latency (<- zomg related to bandwith) and the user can't do much with the unchanging part of the page in the meantime. Oh shit, the whole page reloaded, where was I again?
Can someone else, not the same pedantic idiot, give a good reason why iframes suck?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 3:21
iframes suck because you can do it better with *cough* AJAX ;)
>>32
Interesting. How do you do that for a page you're already on? Ie: can you bookmark it easily?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-14 4:01
>>29
Then Microsoft, Sun, Accenture, banks, and every fucking large software company has sucky programmers because they never use the right tool; they use the most enterprise-ready tool.
I get sick and tired of programmers always blaming the managers.
If your manager sucks, you have a problem, but much of the time the problem is that the programmer couldn't communicate if their life depended on it. Most managers don't have a fucking clue what's going on, because they can't program.
So it's probably your fault too, not just your manager. Suck it up, bitch.
Sucking up to your manager or being replaced by outsourcing to India?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 4:14
>>37
There's a difference between being an ass-kisser and learning to communicate well, and if you don't want to be outsourced, communicating well is a great way to reduce the chances.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 10:15
>>36 Most managers don't have a fucking clue what's going on, because they can't program.
And that's MY fault? What the hell?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 13:18
>>38 if you don't want to be outsourced, communicating well is a great way to reduce the chances.
Companies tried to outsource programmers, but it ended up costing more because the communication is shit.