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

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2011

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 106810
interpreted = N
texte = Chris -1) you're right about keeping the language simple... but...=202) we need debug tools. listfunctions (for example) could be very handy =as each of us builds out very complex web applications in webdna. Heck, =I want list functions to tell me the exact path//file that defined the =function too! :) This 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 building libraries of commonly used functions. a) it saves time, why =reinvent the wheel b) things change. we pick up new projects someone =else started; we 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 =current 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 the 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 don'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. BurtonOn 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 this suggestion, if a bunch of functions is loaded from =the top of the page, or 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.>=20> I think one of the beauties of WebDNA is that the code is usually easy =to 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 impossible to build with current library of instructions.>=20> We have to think better before adding new contexts! :-)>=20> - chris Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Chris -1) you're right about keeping the language simple... but...=202) we need debug tools. listfunctions (for example) could be very handy =as each of us builds out very complex web applications in webdna. Heck, =I want list functions to tell me the exact path//file that defined the =function too! :) This 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 building libraries of commonly used functions. a) it saves time, why =reinvent the wheel b) things change. we pick up new projects someone =else started; we 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 =current 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 the 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 don'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. BurtonOn 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 this suggestion, if a bunch of functions is loaded from =the top of the page, or 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.>=20> I think one of the beauties of WebDNA is that the code is usually easy =to 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 impossible to build with current library of instructions.>=20> We have to think better before adding new contexts! :-)>=20> - chris "Brian B. Burton"

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

MacWEEK article help needed (1996) math problems (2000) New iMac, now ... how do I make webdna serve .html files? (2005) SMSI -What's the deal (2001) Country & Ship-to address & other fields ? (1997) Generating Report Totals (1997) Cookie set browser session. (1998) Moving a record from one dataabse to another. (2000) PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997) [thisurl] (2004) WebMerchant/Macauthorize Suggestions? (1997) Extracting a Word (2000) Um. silly question perhaps...but I don't know, so I'm askin'.. (2001) OSX Continued (2000) Cookie Crumble (1998) Generating unique SKU from [cart] - Still Stumped... (1997) Emailer errors (2000) Looping control (1997) Here's how to kill a Butler Database. (1997) TeaRoom Order fields email account remain empty even though thewy are filled. (1997)