[kman42]

Sorry to start another tabs thread, but eveyone else has and I'm feeling left out.

Not really, I just have a quick question that I don't think will ever get answered in one of those other threads (besides, I've lost interest in even checking them).

It's been mentioned (by Millenium, I think) that Hyatt has already stated that tabs or something like them will be in 1.0. Can someone offer up a link to this?

thanks,
kman

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by kman42:
Sorry to start another tabs thread, but eveyone else has and I'm feeling left out.

Not really, I just have a quick question that I don't think will ever get answered in one of those other threads (besides, I've lost interest in even checking them).

It's been mentioned (by Millenium, I think) that Hyatt has already stated that tabs or something like them will be in 1.0. Can someone offer up a link to this?

thanks,
kman

I don't know if he said it, but two things would support the idea:

1) He created tabbed browsing to begin with on Mozilla
2) The browser window is contained within NSTabView, if you check with Interface Builder

So whether or not we'll see them in 1.0, probably no one knows, but we'll see them eventually.

[curmi]

The sad thing is that it looks like Hyatt was basically going to just use tabs, rather than improving on Chimera.

[billybob]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
1) He created tabbed browsing to begin with on Mozilla

You mean chimera (and phoenix too).

This dude has been busy writing web browsers... safari is # 3. As far as I know he has been the "lead" developer in all cases as well.

I hope to god for tabs... I like safari but having been so spoiled with tabs I can no longer use a browser that does not have them.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"Before sending email, please be aware that I'm not going to comment on future Safari releases (i.e., when they will be, what they will be called, etc.). I am also not going to comment on questions about when particular UI features are going to be implemented, so please - for the love of God - stop asking me if/when UI feature "X" is going to be implemented in Safari."

http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/

[Millennium]

Originally posted by billybob:
You mean chimera (and phoenix too).

He was also responsible for the original implementation of tabbed browsing in Mozilla.

Well, not quite the original implementation; the first tabbed-browsing implementation was an extension called Multizilla. It was so popular that Hyatt wrote his own tab implementation and folded it into the main tree. Multizilla still exists, but now it extends the existing tab functionality, rather than adding it in the first place.

This dude has been busy writing web browsers... safari is # 3. As far as I know he has been the "lead" developer in all cases as well.

He wasn't the lead developer for Mozilla, though he did have an important role in the CSS implementation. But this makes #4, not #3. This guy knows browsers, to be sure.

Where did he say it? Unless I'm mistaken, it was in his blog. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact point at the moment; I'll have to dig it out.

[smeger]

Originally posted by diamondsw:

2) The browser window is contained within NSTabView, if you check with Interface Builder

This got me curious, so I took a look around. It looks like it'll be really easy for Apple to implement some sort of tabbed GUI - easy, as in, if I had the GUI source, it might take about 20 minutes easy.

The tab view that's there contains a WebView object that's a custom NSView subclass. This is where page content is displayed. It also contains the bookmark manager. These are the two non-tabbed views in the tab view.

The window's controller has an outlet to the WebView.

Given this, it would be cake for Apple to get quick-n-dirty tabs working. Of course, I'm sure that they'll do something a bit nicer than quick'n'dirty. But it's not gonna be rocket science.

[Gee4orce]

Please....don't....mention... .tabbed....browsing....again!

[TheIceMan]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Please....don't....mention... .tabbed....browsing....again!

Hehehe.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Man this whole tab thing is just about as annoying as OSX 10.0 was released in an optimized and non optimized CD's with the same version number.

[Hi I'm Ben]

oh i just can't browse without tabs! Cnn.com won't even load without them and if my tabs aren't on I don't know how to manage windows.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Please....don't....mention... .tabbed....browsing....again!

Heheh. I couldn't help but read this in time with the head bashing.

As to the NSTabView. Perhaps this has something to do with the bookmarks management view? I'll have to check when I return home tonight.

[neilw]

Is it just me or does Safari only animate the bottom-most visible copy of the animated GIF? All the others appear frozen. Noticed it before, but the head-banging festival above illustrated it much better....

Hmm, just noticed that when I roll over a link, all the frozen animations update one frame. Weird! [even weirder: now it stopped?!]

[calumr]

Originally posted by smeger:
This got me curious, so I took a look around. It looks like it'll be really easy for Apple to implement some sort of tabbed GUI - easy, as in, if I had the GUI source, it might take about 20 minutes easy.

The reason why there is a tab view there is so that the bookmarks view and the web page view can be swapped easily - not necessarily because it is the start of a tabbed browsing implementation (IMHO).

Adding tabbed browsing is not easy. They would have to write custom code so URLs could be dragged on to the tabs, code for handling when too many tabs get created in a window (and a new window has to be created), code for adding multi-page bookmarks, and probably a pile of other features that people won't stop whining about until Apple implements them (<sarcasm>because Safari is so useless without them </sarcasm>).

[kman42]

Originally posted by calumr:
The reason why there is a tab view there is so that the bookmarks view and the web page view can be swapped easily - not necessarily because it is the start of a tabbed browsing implementation (IMHO).

Adding tabbed browsing is not easy. They would have to write custom code so URLs could be dragged on to the tabs, code for handling when too many tabs get created in a window (and a new window has to be created), code for adding multi-page bookmarks, and probably a pile of other features that people won't stop whining about until Apple implements them (<sarcasm>because Safari is so useless without them </sarcasm>).

None of the items you mention would be difficult, especially compared to the actual rendering engine. These are just UI details that a good Cocoa programmer could probably accomplish in a couple of weeks, at the outside.

NOOOOO!!! I got sucked into the tabs debate. Run away!!!

kman

[lookmark]

It's not nearly so much a technical as it is a UI matter, IMO. Whether you like tabbed browsing or not, there's a whole raft of usability issues to figure out... especially if Apple is going to try to figure out how it make it better.

BTW, Hyatt never said in his weblog that tabbed browsing was going be added to Safari. (That's just rumors taking on a life of their own at their best.) He basically said "no comment". With a touch of "leave me alone".

[TimeOnMyHands]

I heard from an Apple engineer friend of mine (that I got drunk) that Safari 1.0 (not the beta) will have all the debug code removed and will be TWICE as fast as the beta we're using now.

Oh yeah, it'll have tabs, too, but better than Chimera. (Hint: Think tabs, but with no debug code! One more thing: STRIPES!)

It's called Safari X 4k78, and it will rule!

/massively poor attempt at humor off

[Guy Incognito]

My guess is that Hyatt probably tried to implement tabbed browsing ala Chimera but Apple brandished its finger at him.

If this concept were to be added one day in Chimera, it would definitely be a much better solution that what Hyatt keeps flinging at browsers.

I can't believe Hyatt (pretty much) started this whole tabbed-browsing garbage. I think he's only in charge of the underpinnings and not the GUI itself now. Obviously he knows nothing of a good GUI.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
My guess is that Hyatt probably tried to implement tabbed browsing ala Chimera but Apple brandished its finger at him.

Either that, or there were simply other priorities.

You know, it's possible to have an NSTabView without any actual tabs. You can then use other widgets to control the switching behavior. So, my anti-Tab friend, do not lose heart; they may be leveraging the existing NSTabView code while coming up with a new widget to control it all. Would that satisfy your zealotry?

But can you really be so sure that Apple stopped him? I mean, they had to have known his history with tabbed browsing, and I don't think they'd have hired him to build a browser if they thought that it was the horrible awful invention that you seem to believe it is.

If this concept were to be added one day in Chimera, it would definitely be a much better solution that what Hyatt keeps flinging at browsers.

Ad hominem. I particularly like this "flinging", a verb most often used nowadays to describe throwing fecal matter in all its names. That word choice can't have been coincidental, now could it? I wonder what Hyatt would say, were he on these forums. Perhaps I should invite him, so that the two of you could have a real debate?

I can't believe Hyatt (pretty much) started this whole tabbed-browsing garbage.

I'm trying to remember if he was the first to use tabs for it. Opera was the first browser to use an MDI concept, though it used the standard Microsoft MDI to do so (and even you have to admit that this was an even worse idea than tabs are). And although I'm not totally sure, Galeon (which Hyatt has no direct involvement in, aside from his work on Gecko) might have had tabs before MultiZilla, which Hyatt didn't write.

I think he's only in charge of the underpinnings and not the GUI itself now.

And your evidence of this is...?

Obviously he knows nothing of a good GUI.

And he speaks so highly of you, Guy.

I'd say it's more like he doesn't know anything of what you think is a good GUI. Which, frankly, is no great loss, since your idea of a good GUI appears to involve stagnation; once something hits 1.0 it is locked in stone and no one must ever change it again.

This is reality, Guy. Stagnation equals death. If nothing ever improves, except at the whim of a couple of ivory-tower self-proclaimed "experts" then we may as well throw in the towel and switch to Windows now, because you've spelled out the doom of innovation in the GUI paradigm.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
I can't believe Hyatt (pretty much) started this whole tabbed-browsing garbage. I think he's only in charge of the underpinnings and not the GUI itself now. Obviously he knows nothing of a good GUI.

You shun tabs and you always say they're terrible UI for a browser, but why don't you be a little more constructive and suggest a better alternative since you've at least mentioned that tabs have good ideas to them. What UI would you work these good ideas into?

[Millennium]

I looked a little more into this NSTabView in the .nib file.

Yes, it is there. It is currently used for switching between Bookmarks and Web mode. The tabs have been turned off. You can turn them back on, but don't get your hopes up; all you'll be able to use them for is switching between Bookmarks and Web mode (just like the Bookmarks icon in the bookmarks bar, but requiring two buttons instead of one). You'll still be stuck with one Web view per window.

There is, as of yet, no other tab-browsing UI that I can find. Theoretically this tabless NSTabView could be leveraged to add such a capability, but there's no code in there to do that yet.

[Homer1946]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You shun tabs and you always say they're terrible UI for a browser, but why don't you be a little more constructive and suggest a better alternative since you've at least mentioned that tabs have good ideas to them. What UI would you work these good ideas into?

Ok, I will chime in. I like tabs. For me, it makes the type of browsing I do (lots of windows open at once with me clicking a link and them changing to read another tab while it loads). Just like the way tabs in Adium makes chatting with eight people easier than the windows clutter of iChat, tabs can make browsing easier for those who take to it.

Safari would be better with tabs (remember, they are always optional).

That said, I pretty much use iChat exclusively, and Safari 95% of the time although, right now, I would not say beta Safari is superior to beta Chimera.

-R

[macmike42]

Originally posted by TimeOnMyHands:
no debug code!

Oooh! It's gonna be snappy�?

How sad is it that I had to open Character Map to figure out I had to type Alt-0153 to get the � character? Really takes all the fun out of it. Windows sucks.

PS. Stop feeding the Guy Incognitroll!

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You shun tabs and you always say they're terrible UI for a browser, but why don't you be a little more constructive and suggest a better alternative since you've at least mentioned that tabs have good ideas to them. What UI would you work these good ideas into?

Awww **** you...I've suggested tons upon tons of alternatives. Use the 'search' feature for God's sake.

[smeger]

Sorry, I wasn't too clear on my "it'll be easy for apple to add tabs" post.

As currently implemented, there's a tabless NSTabView that contains, in one tab, a WebView (which shows you a web page), and in the other, your bookmarks. The owner of this nib has an outlet that's connected to the WebView - this is how it knows which view to draw a webpage into.

A very quick'n'dirty tab implementation needs only to replace this outlet with a controller class that provides a particular WebView object instead of just the single one that Apple's got hooked up. The controller class looks at a tabbed NSTabView that has replaced the existing WebView to get its array of tabbed WebViews.

Please note that this is a quick & dirty solution - it's not very elegant, and it is by no means complete. I'm not advocating that Apple do nothing more than this - it's just an example, 'mkay?

The point that I was trying to make is that it does not appear that Apple has fenced themselves in in such a way that implementing tabs would require ripping things apart and reimplementing - they can do it with what they've got in the beta.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Would that satisfy your zealotry?

Real ad hom above.

Ad hominem. I particularly like this "flinging", a verb most often used nowadays to describe throwing fecal matter in all its names. That word choice can't have been coincidental, now could it? I wonder what Hyatt would say, were he on these forums. Perhaps I should invite him, so that the two of you could have a real debate?

Calling 'flinging' some form of ad hominem above.

And your evidence of this is...?

Notice the words "my guess is" and "(pretty much)". The first occurence of "my guess is" was in reference to a speculation of mine.

And "(pretty much)" meant that he didn't invent tabbed-browsing but he's the one that popularized it by implementing it in every browser he could touch.

I'd say it's more like he doesn't know anything of what you think is a good GUI. Which, frankly, is no great loss, since your idea of a good GUI appears to involve stagnation; once something hits 1.0 it is locked in stone and no one must ever change it again.

More ad-homs from a sorry excuse of a moderator.

This is reality, Guy. Stagnation equals death. If nothing ever improves, except at the whim of a couple of ivory-tower self-proclaimed "experts" then we may as well throw in the towel and switch to Windows now, because you've spelled out the doom of innovation in the GUI paradigm.

That's why I'm providing better solutions for the tabbed-browsing concept...so we don't stagnate with a shitty UI implementation.


Here's an ad-hom for you...eat sh!t, troll!

Lets see you use your mod authority to call in the Admin patrol to tell me to cool my jets or even ban me. You know you want to and will.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Real ad hom above.

OK, I'll admit that one was ad hominem. My sincere apologies for that.

Calling 'flinging' some form of ad hominem above.

Onoly noting a flaw in your argumentative style. That is not attacking you personally, therefore it is not ad hominem.

More ad-homs from a sorry excuse of a moderator.

See below.

Here's an ad-hom for you...eat sh!t, troll!

Lets see you use your mod authority to call in the Admin patrol to tell me to cool my jets or even ban me. You know you want to and will.

I'll tell you to cool it; I can take care of myself, thank you very much. And I resent this implication that I would want to ban you. I stand by my assertion that you're very ill-informed about how the Web works and what Web pages are, but I would not dream of silencing you.

But I'll let you in on a little secret, Guy: I resigned my moderatorship on Monday, before Safari was even released and well before I even entered this discussion with you. Go ahead and ask the other mods; there's solid proof in the Moderators forum. I had my own reasons for resigning, and I would prefer not to go into them here. All I'm waiting for now is for the processes to go through; I suspect they're looking for someone to replace me. But for all intents and purposes, I'm not a mod anymore, and have not been at any point of this discussion.

I don't know why you hate me, Guy. But cool it. Because I'll let you in on another secret: I don't hate you.

[EDIT: Added the last sentence.]

[Guy Incognito]

Let's get this straight once and for all Millennium.

HTML is *not* a programming language.

Writing an HTML page does not make it become application when it's posted online.

[nobodybutme]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Let's get this straight once and for all Millennium.

HTML is *not* a programming language.

Writing an HTML page does not make it become application when it's posted online.

The html can potentially describe an interface to an application, which it does for many sites and many companies. It's a view, just like interface builder creates a view of your apps. That is why there is such a thing as Enterprise Web Apps. Um, they look like html, but here is a little secret...there is logic behind them. Yes, programming. Wild, huh? So yes, they are considered apps in this scenario. You really aren't making much sense.

[mrmister]

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

Ladies, please...some of us are trying to waste time here.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by nobodybutme:
The html can potentially describe an interface to an application, which it does for many sites and many companies. It's a view, just like interface builder creates a view of your apps. That is why there is such a thing as Enterprise Web Apps. Um, they look like html, but here is a little secret...there is logic behind them. Yes, programming. Wild, huh? So yes, they are considered apps in this scenario. You really aren't making much sense.

Internet apps are things like FTP apps, newsgroup apps, P2P file sharing apps, instant messager apps, embeddable Java applets.

HTML cannot describe an interface to an application. Java Script can...Java can. Not HTML.

HTML web pages are nothing more than documents that allow the possibility of embedding apps.

Don't try to skew perspectives with the "Well, it's an app because of this...and because of that"-bullcrap.

HTML is not a programming language...it's an interpreted language just like any other word processor document format.

Yes...you can have an HTML page with *gasp* only one large Java applet. Then this document would be perceived as an app to Millenium. Well...yes, Java applets are programs! But it's still embedded in a document.

This very same Java applet could be programmed so that it doesn't rely on being embedded into a webpage.

dfiler mentionned that both I and Millenium were right (and wrong) because the fine line between app and docs was pretty much non-existant for web pages. I guess you could see it that way...people are using web documents to embed cross-platform apps. Does that make the page an app? I can see how it could to some.

This could very well be where the web is going...embedding apps. Maybe the future lies in internet apps. Who knows. But right now the poor browsers that were once only asked to display pages are asked to run miniature applications.

[gorgonzola]

Nice job derailing another thread. This one's about Safari tabs, not whether you consider HTML a programming language.

Back on topic, please...

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Internet apps are things like FTP apps, newsgroup apps, P2P file sharing apps, instant messager apps, embeddable Java applets.

HTML cannot describe an interface to an application. Java Script can...Java can. Not HTML.

HTML web pages are nothing more than documents that allow the possibility of embedding apps.

Don't try to skew perspectives with the "Well, it's an app because of this...and because of that"-bullcrap.

HTML is not a programming language...it's an interpreted language just like any other word processor document format.

Yes...you can have an HTML page with *gasp* only one large Java applet. Then this document would be perceived as an app to Millenium. Well...yes, Java applets are programs! But it's still embedded in a document.

This very same Java applet could be programmed so that it doesn't rely on being embedded into a webpage.

dfiler mentionned that both I and Millenium were right (and wrong) because the fine line between app and docs was pretty much non-existant for web pages. I guess you could see it that way...people are using web documents to embed cross-platform apps. Does that make the page an app? I can see how it could to some.

This could very well be where the web is going...embedding apps. Maybe the future lies in internet apps. Who knows. But right now the poor browsers that were once only asked to display pages are asked to run miniature applications.

Not that I *want* to keep the thread off topic, but seriously what are you talking about? What about the HTML that is the interface to all those websites using PHP, ASP, CFML and whatever else? Are you saying that none of those can be considered applications with HTML driving the interface?

[nobodybutme]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Internet apps are things like FTP apps, newsgroup apps, P2P file sharing apps, instant messager apps, embeddable Java applets.

HTML cannot describe an interface to an application. Java Script can...Java can. Not HTML.

HTML web pages are nothing more than documents that allow the possibility of embedding apps.

Don't try to skew perspectives with the "Well, it's an app because of this...and because of that"-bullcrap.

HTML is not a programming language...it's an interpreted language just like any other word processor document format.

Yes...you can have an HTML page with *gasp* only one large Java applet. Then this document would be perceived as an app to Millenium. Well...yes, Java applets are programs! But it's still embedded in a document.

This very same Java applet could be programmed so that it doesn't rely on being embedded into a webpage.

dfiler mentionned that both I and Millenium were right (and wrong) because the fine line between app and docs was pretty much non-existant for web pages. I guess you could see it that way...people are using web documents to embed cross-platform apps. Does that make the page an app? I can see how it could to some.

This could very well be where the web is going...embedding apps. Maybe the future lies in internet apps. Who knows. But right now the poor browsers that were once only asked to display pages are asked to run miniature applications.

It sounds like you misunderstood the post. I never insinuated any of what your stating, such as HTML being a programming language. I thought your original argument was that web pages aren't applications, which is an oddly shallow view. I think this was your original stance and I was responding as such. I also think you confuse yourself and struggle for a way out of being wrong via digression.

gorgonzola is right. Sorry for assisting in the digression. I'm done.

[awaspaas]

Hopefully by me posting here, this worthless thread will now die! (I have a way of doing that)

[Millennium]

Ah; it seems they've finished my processing. Now you can't make your baseless accusations of abusing my powers, can you?

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
HTML cannot describe an interface to an application. Java Script can...Java can. Not HTML.

Oh, really?

Let's see. How do you put a button on a Web page? Hmm; JavaScript can't do it. Java can't do it (it can put a button in its own applets, but not on the page). So how do all these buttons get onto the Forums? I don't know, maybe... HTML? Yep; it's called the INPUT tag.

How's about text fields? Probably the most important aspect of data editing, these are. Surely JavaScript can... wait... no, it can't. Java... same limitations as with buttons. Once again, HTML comes to the rescue, with the INPUT and TEXTAREA tags.

Menus? Ooh, these are tricky; surely HTML can't... oh, wait, the SELECT and OPTION tags. Um, never mind.

Hmm. Let's see. Ooh, I know; what about labels for buttons? You know, the type where you click on the label and it checks a checkbox or radio button? Oh, wait; that's the LABEL tag. Darn.

Um, frames! No, not the type which divide a browser window into sections; I'm talking about the boxes you see around groups of widgets sometimes? Again, HTML, with the FIELDSET and LEGEND tags.

You know what an HTML file is? Essentially, it's like a .nib file for Cocoa. A part of an application, which is run when you access the site. Sometimes they're the only part of the app, with no programming logic behind them at all. That doesn't make them any less apps, though. Consider the case of a Cocoa "hello world" app which has no code in it but a .nib file, and the tiny bit of Cocoa needed to bootstrap it (not unlike a browser, in that it handles displaying the app). This is an application, as I'm sure you'd agree. So why is HTML different?

Don't try to skew perspectives with the "Well, it's an app because of this...and because of that"-bullcrap.

"Skewing perspectives"? You mean, present actual arguments for my point? You accuse me of being a troll; sounds more like you want me to be a troll.

HTML is not a programming language...it's an interpreted language just like any other word processor document format.

OK, what about Perl, Python, JavaScript, or even Java itself? All of these are interpreted languages, yet certainly you would call them programming languages.

Or here's a fun one: XSLT. A Turing-complete programming language which takes in XML pages (including XHTML) and spits out other XML pages (including, potentially, XHTML).

Some people would say that these are scripting languages, because they're interpreted. But to be frank, that really doesn't mean anything except for a slight difference in how they're run.

Yes...you can have an HTML page with *gasp* only one large Java applet. Then this document would be perceived as an app to Millenium. Well...yes, Java applets are programs! But it's still embedded in a document.

Or rather, embedded in an application. Kind of like how apps running natively on OSX are embedded in windows, provided by another application (the window server). Are you going to tell me that a Finder window -just to give an example- is a document?

This very same Java applet could be programmed so that it doesn't rely on being embedded into a webpage.

Indeed it could. How is that relevant?

[Guy Incognito]

[edit:...actually...I'll hold to my word.]

[smeger]

Damn it, guys, this was an interesting thead before your argument derailed it!

As an engineer, it's somewhat entertaining for me to watch Millenium destroy Guy with logic and coolheadedness while Gui flails around, swearing & blustering. But it ain't that entertaining...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
[edit:...actually...I'll hold to my word.]

Nice try, Guy. it would work, except that vBulletin automatically inserts the time and date of the time a message was last edited, and your post has no such date. Even the admins can't change the text for when the post was last deleted (you could if you had direct access to the database, but unless I'm mistaken only Parallax has that, and I doubt he'd take an interest in this).

You never edited this post. So why is it here, and why did you post it in such a way as to make people think you'd edited it? Honest question, actually; you have me intrigued here. Are you trying to illustrate some kind of point?

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by smeger:
Damn it, guys, this was an interesting thead before your argument derailed it!

As an engineer, it's somewhat entertaining for me to watch Millenium destroy Guy with logic and coolheadedness while Gui flails around, swearing & blustering. But it ain't that entertaining...

Wow...you're a practitioner or Millennium-Logic too? Dear Lord.

Millennium has no logic. His claim that web pages are apps are ridiculous to no end.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nice try, Guy. it would work, except that vBulletin automatically inserts the time and date of the time a message was last edited, and your post has no such date. Even the admins can't change the text for when the post was last deleted (you could if you had direct access to the database, but unless I'm mistaken only Parallax has that, and I doubt he'd take an interest in this).

You never edited this post. So why is it here, and why did you post it in such a way as to make people think you'd edited it? Honest question, actually; you have me intrigued here. Are you trying to illustrate some kind of point?

I believe if you edit it in the first minute (or first few minutes) vBulletin acts as stupidly as you do and doesn't seem to log it... try it you dumb fu�k. It's fun.

edit: here's me editing and ****ing up vBulletin.

[gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Here's an ad-hom for you...eat sh!t, troll!

Lets see you use your mod authority to call in the Admin patrol to tell me to cool my jets or even ban me. You know you want to and will.

BTW, Millennium did not request anything, nor is he a mod anymore (as he said). (FWIW, Millennium, you are welcome back any time you change your mind.)

That said, cool your jets. If I see it again, I'm going to ban you. You responded rather rudely to my suggestion to quit hijacking threads about other software to rabidly evangelize Proteus when I did it in private, so I feel the need to do it in public. And what better thread to do it in than a thread you already derailed?

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
BTW, Millennium did not request anything, nor is he a mod anymore (as he said). (FWIW, Millennium, you are welcome back any time you change your mind.)

That said, cool your jets. If I see it again, I'm going to ban you. You responded rather rudely to my suggestion to quit hijacking threads about other software to rabidly evangelize Proteus when I did it in private, so I feel the need to do it in public. And what better thread to do it in than a thread you already derailed?

Stop keeping the thread derailed and use Private Message, idiot! Show some example.

Use some of the Gorgonzola-Cheeze-Powers and ban me.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Wow...you're a practitioner or Millennium-Logic too? Dear Lord.

Millennium has no logic. His claim that web pages are apps are ridiculous to no end.

If my assertion is truly so ridiculous, then it should be easy for you to refute every single claim I've made supporting it. So far you haven't dont that; rather than attacking my supporting arguments, you've been banging your head against the core assertion, with a frequency and intensity that would make the Brick smiley jealous

If you want to debate, then fine: we can debate. I suggest that at this point, it be taken off-forum; we've clogged up two threads already, and it's only a matter of time before it spills over into others. And while I admit it's kind of fun to be part of an epic multi-thread struggle between two well-established titans, it's really not fair to the other members to be rolling over into all the other threads.

And yes, you read me right: this is fun. You're sitting at your computer getting all worked up, and here I am having the time of my life. I mean, I'm laughing as I write this, not in any kind of ridicule or jest, but because the plain joy that comes from an honest intellectual workout. I haven't had a sparring partner like you in ages; it's fun to be able to really stretch my legs again. There's a reason I nominated you to replace me, despite the fact that everyone thinks I'm nuts for doing so. But keep in mind, this is a Web forum. If you're actually getting angry then you're taking it way too seriously.

So, I leave it in your hands. Do we take this discussion to e-mail, or do we stop it completely? You know how to PM me, so I'll be expecting your answer there.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

A web page is really just a text file thats visually interpreted a certain way...an app, given the standard meaning we all use, is a self-containted compiled binary program. I would say it's fair to call a web page an "interactive document"...but "application" is stretching the term incorrectly, imho.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
A web page is really just a text file thats visually interpreted a certain way...an app, given the standard meaning we all use, is a self-containted compiled binary program.

But is that not also just a file that's interpreted in a certain way? Apps aren't truly self-contained either; they rely on library calls which rely on other library calls, until it eventually goes back to the kernel, and even that depends on the hardware. That all adds up to a runtime environment in which the app runs, not unlike how Web pages run inside a browser. This is particularly true for Cocoa apps, which run inside a dynamic runtime - a sort of hybrid environment where most of the code is compiled natively, but not everything is truly "native" to the processor. That's done to give Cocoa some of the advantages of scripting environments like Perl and Python (most notably dynamic typing), but it does come at a slight performance hit.

I would say it's fair to call a web page an "interactive document"...but "application" is stretching the term incorrectly, imho.

What about a HyperCard stack, then, to give another example?

[Moose]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
A web page is really just a text file thats visually interpreted a certain way...an app, given the standard meaning we all use, is a self-containted compiled binary program. I would say it's fair to call a web page an "interactive document"...but "application" is stretching the term incorrectly, imho.

...yes. But in many cases, a web page is the user's interface to an application. Examples include vBulletin, Slash, online banking sites, etc. These are all examples of three-tier web applications. WebObjects, PHP, ASP, and Perl are all languages used to develop web applications. But they have one thing in common:

At runtime, they output HTML to the user.

[undotwa]

Just because it's not binary does not mean it's not a program...

Once it figures out the script etc. it simply executes it as if it was a program.

JavaScript is not a programming language. JavaScript is just something used in addition to HTML. JavaScript just uses HTML to draw on screen.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

You all have made some very good points- but please note I said "given the standard meaning we all use"

I don't think I was totally clear what I meant. The term "App" as we use it in everyday speech is normally understood as something like Photoshop or iTunes; a self contained program that runs at the OS level. We don't even call all programs the same thing...Techtool is referred to as a "Utility", eg.

I think it really comes down to semantics; we geeks can argue philisophically about what makes an app an app, but to Joe 6-Pack, telling him a web page is an App is needlessly confusing. The fact is, given the web browser/page paradigm, it doesn't make sense to confuse the terminology. If html becomes a system level interpreter, perhaps these ideas will shift - uh...but look what happened to MS when they tried that

[nobodybutme]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Just because it's not binary does not mean it's not a program...

Once it figures out the script etc. it simply executes it as if it was a program.

JavaScript is not a programming language. JavaScript is just something used in addition to HTML. JavaScript just uses HTML to draw on screen.

Actually, it can be a very convenient server side language. We made a Java based JavaScript server used to manage dynamic business work flows. It complemented a rules based document processing engine. So, it's not always about html.