Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: beegee <bgulian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 16, 7:04 am, Henry <rcornf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:21 pm, beegee wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:18 am, Henry wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:51 pm, beegee wrote:
(just think about the lack of a <script> tag).
It would save a great deal of time if you would explain what you are
talking about when asked.
You didn't ask anything. This comment was in my first post.
Think betterer. How do you include a javascript file?
In WSH?
Now think about how you would do it in a non-browser hosted
environment.
Wouldn't that depend on the environment? You were (though you edited
it from the quoted material without even marking that edit) talking
about WSH.
Okay, my requoting was not clear, I do mean WSH.
Honestly, if you know of a way of doing it without eval--------------------------------------------------------------
then please let me know.
{Your example using a wsf file followed). Thank you. Your example
worked perfectly. I'm not sure what the vbscript was for, I replaced
it with JScript and it worked fine. I was ignorant of wsf files and I
guess your point is that a include mechanism is the responsibility of
the scripting host not the language. In any case, your proof
certainly obviates the need for eval().
In his new book, his (and others) main argument against eval,
security, is inapplicable to server side scripting.
That depends entirely on where the thing that is being eval-ed came
from (just as it does in client-side scripting). The only additional
security offered by the server is the fact that a potential attacker
cannot directly observe the use of - eval - in the server side code.
Well of course, I am assuming that all code, and especially javascript
code is coming from server based files in static libraries. When I say
server-side scripting, I'm talking about maintenance, test suites,
source control, etc. I'm not talking about CGI or web service clients
although I guess one could use JScript for that. I certainly
wouldn't.
Perhaps his recommendation to deprecate is more to spur
interest in a replacement technology but to do that, OS
hosting must be considered.
What you are calling "OS hosting" is fixed object model scripting,
which is precisely the application where a significantly stricter
language variant can produce the greatest returns.
I don't know. That seems a pretty general statement. I doubt
Rubyists, Pythonists or AppleScripters (if your comment was translated
for them) would agree with you.
Bob
.
- References:
- What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: Jorge
- Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: beegee
- Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: Henry
- Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: beegee
- Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- From: Henry
- What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Setting table column width?
- Next by Date: Re: document.write call position
- Previous by thread: Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- Next by thread: Re: What's wrong with arguments.callee ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
