Re: [WebDNA] Re: listfunctions - direction of webdna

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2011

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 106815
interpreted = N
texte = Holy cow!1. I had not read this before my response, but I agree with thesimplicity idea so much I even recommended pulling a recently addedtag!2. I agree on the debugging tools. I have a footer.inc that listsall the variables on the page but it struck me as odd that I could notlist the functions or scopes. See: https://gist.github.com/10434163. I think the framework is up to the community. In fact, we couldsee multiple frameworks which would be a good thing.4. Agree that array sucks in WebDNA. I used it for a complexshipping price formula and almost went to the shell to handle inanother language. I also use some functions to get a db into a tableor xml. For XML see: https://gist.github.com/1043618I can post the db to if there's interest.BillOn Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Brian B. Burton wrote:> Chris ->> 1) you're right about keeping the language simple... but...>> 2) we need debug tools. listfunctions (for example) could be very handy a=s each of us builds out very complex web applications in webdna. Heck, I wa=nt list functions to tell me the exact path//file that defined the function= too! :) =A0This is not something that any of us could assemble (that I am =aware of) using other tags.>> 3) we need consistency. keeping the tags simple =3D awesome, but if that'=s the case, maybe the community should be more proactive in sharing and bui=lding libraries of commonly used functions. a) it saves time, why reinvent =the wheel b) things change. we pick up new projects someone else started; w=e hand off projects to someone else. Having a common set of verbs and file =organization (i.e. frameworks) is more helpful then hurtful.>> 4) we need an array tag that works similar to other languages. (the curre=nt array tags are junk, imnsho) the funny thing is, we kind of already have= it. It's called the table tag. we just need some extra tags that go with t=he table tag. a)the ability to set up a table based on all the fields in a =source database (webdna or sql) in one easy command. b) [for row in athlete=_list] blah blah [/for]. (yes, you can use search and a founditems, but I d=on't like typing that much, and it's not how other languages do it, so it's= harder to get programmers up to speed using webdna)>> just my random thoughts.> Brian B. Burton>>> On Jun 23, 2011, at 7:28 AM, christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote:>>> I take note of every feature request but i think we should not overload =the WebDNA language with instructions if a new tag is not mandatory. In thi=s suggestion, if a bunch of functions is loaded from the top of the page, o=r from an include, the list would be easily available in all cases just by =reading it. I am not sure i understand the scope of getting this "function =list" inside an interpreted web page.>> PHP has already 1200+ available instructions but my guess is 10% of them= are really useful.>>>> I think one of the beauties of WebDNA is that the code is usually easy t=o read and understand, with less than 100 instructions. If we would have to= add new contexts, they should do things that are either too complex or imp=ossible to build with current library of instructions.>>>> We have to think better before adding new contexts! :-)>>>> - chris>>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us> Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Holy cow!1. I had not read this before my response, but I agree with thesimplicity idea so much I even recommended pulling a recently addedtag!2. I agree on the debugging tools. I have a footer.inc that listsall the variables on the page but it struck me as odd that I could notlist the functions or scopes. See: https://gist.github.com/10434163. I think the framework is up to the community. In fact, we couldsee multiple frameworks which would be a good thing.4. Agree that array sucks in WebDNA. I used it for a complexshipping price formula and almost went to the shell to handle inanother language. I also use some functions to get a db into a tableor xml. For XML see: https://gist.github.com/1043618I can post the db to if there's interest.BillOn Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Brian B. Burton wrote:> Chris ->> 1) you're right about keeping the language simple... but...>> 2) we need debug tools. listfunctions (for example) could be very handy a=s each of us builds out very complex web applications in webdna. Heck, I wa=nt list functions to tell me the exact path//file that defined the function= too! :) =A0This is not something that any of us could assemble (that I am =aware of) using other tags.>> 3) we need consistency. keeping the tags simple =3D awesome, but if that'=s the case, maybe the community should be more proactive in sharing and bui=lding libraries of commonly used functions. a) it saves time, why reinvent =the wheel b) things change. we pick up new projects someone else started; w=e hand off projects to someone else. Having a common set of verbs and file =organization (i.e. frameworks) is more helpful then hurtful.>> 4) we need an array tag that works similar to other languages. (the curre=nt array tags are junk, imnsho) the funny thing is, we kind of already have= it. It's called the table tag. we just need some extra tags that go with t=he table tag. a)the ability to set up a table based on all the fields in a =source database (webdna or sql) in one easy command. b) [for row in athlete=_list] blah blah [/for]. (yes, you can use search and a founditems, but I d=on't like typing that much, and it's not how other languages do it, so it's= harder to get programmers up to speed using webdna)>> just my random thoughts.> Brian B. Burton>>> On Jun 23, 2011, at 7:28 AM, christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote:>>> I take note of every feature request but i think we should not overload =the WebDNA language with instructions if a new tag is not mandatory. In thi=s suggestion, if a bunch of functions is loaded from the top of the page, o=r from an include, the list would be easily available in all cases just by =reading it. I am not sure i understand the scope of getting this "function =list" inside an interpreted web page.>> PHP has already 1200+ available instructions but my guess is 10% of them= are really useful.>>>> I think one of the beauties of WebDNA is that the code is usually easy t=o read and understand, with less than 100 instructions. If we would have to= add new contexts, they should do things that are either too complex or imp=ossible to build with current library of instructions.>>>> We have to think better before adding new contexts! :-)>>>> - chris>>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us> William DeVaul

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: [WebDNA] Re: listfunctions - direction of webdna

2011

Top Articles:

Related Readings: