Re: [PHP] Re: A Little Something.

Stut wrote:
> On 12 May 2008, at 09:39, Peter Ford wrote:
>> tedd wrote:
>>> Hi gang:
>>> This is what I did this morning:
>>> http://webbytedd.com/bb/tribute/
>>> It speaks for itself.
>>> Cheers,
>>> tedd
>>
>> tedd,
>>
>> Nothing to do with the subject matter, but I noticed because it is one 
>> of your more simple pages: I get a JS "urchinTracker() not defined" 
>> error on your site, almost certainly because NoScript is blocking 
>> UrchinTracker...
>>
>> Perhaps you should wrap that naked call to urchinTracker() in a 
>> conditional - maybe as simple as
>>
>>     if (urchinTracker) urchinTracker();
>>
>> <pet-peeve>
>> I really hate seeing JS errors on published sites (i.e. not 
>> development sandboxes)
>> </pet-peeve>
>>
>> 'course, there are many sites that make the same call to 
>> urchinTracker(), and many many worse errors...
> 
> I see your pet peeve and I'll raise you one of mine...
> 
> <pet-peeve>
> People who use Javascript blockers, especially Javascript blockers that 
> do a half-arsed job which causes errors.
> </pet-peeve>
> 
> If you're going to block Javascript, block it. Don't use something that 
> tries (and apparently fails) to block it intelligently.
> 
> What are you so afraid of?
> 
> -Stut
> 

Your pet peeve seems to be a rather thinly veiled personal attack - I tried to 
be clear to tedd that my comment was not personal, but highlighted by his page.

Javascript is a very powerful but rather blunt instrument, and I prefer to be 
judicious in my use of power.

NoScript is not causing the error. The absence of UrchinTracker is causing the 
error. I choose not to allow UrchinTracker into my system.
NoScript is certainly not doing a half-arsed job - it's working perfectly, 
unless you think I should suffer extra CPU cycles while the browser parses every 
line of Javascript to see what will happen before running it. That would be a 
job for a compiler, rather than a scripting engine.

What I'm most "afraid" of are assumptions that something I didn't ask for exists 
in the environment I use to work in. If a page features a message that says "we 
use Urchin Tracker to (...whatever it is that Urchin Tracker does...) and you 
may see errors if you block it", then I can understand.

What I also am "afraid" of is that I don't know everything that I should be 
afraid of - using NoScript is a good way of giving me chance to research the 
stuff that is being pushed into my browser. Of course, in some cases I don't 
feel the need to research, and block unconditionally until I see a problem with 
that approach.

A developer should not make assumptions about the existence of a feature in the 
target system - he should specify requirements and let the end-user decide if 
his product is acceptable, or check that a feature is present and work around it 
if not.
I can even tolerate "This site requires Internet Explorer 5.3 or later" (as my 
credit card company does) if the providers are upfront about it...

I don't consider being afraid as a weakness - but blasé indifference to danger 
can be a fatal weakness.

-- 
Peter Ford                              phone: 01580 893333
Developer                               fax:   01580 893399
Justcroft International Ltd., Staplehurst, Kent