Peter,
Haha, I thought that's what you meant, meaning your original statement
was probably more correct, that the issue is decreasing.
Thanks for clarifying.
Gene
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:14 +0100, Peter Schneider wrote:
> Hi Gene,
>
> sorry if I have created so much confusion. ;)
>
> He
Hi Gene,
sorry if I have created so much confusion. ;)
Here's what I meant:
* The longer you wait, the lesser performance is an issue.
* Performance is increasing (it's getting better and better)
Hope that helps,
Peter
Original
From: Gene Amtower
Date: 16.12.2009 18:40
>
Please see small clarification below...
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:10 +0100, Peter Schneider wrote:
> >> As with most of the JavaScripts engine features, it seems to be
> that the
> >> performance issue of eval() is decreasing with every new browser
> version.
> >
> > I don't have this impression.
Hi Andreas,
here's my 2nd (more detailed) reply:
> Hi Peter,
> [...]
[...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
>>>
>>> Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
>>> regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
>>
>> I think it's a bit more than j
Dear Peter,
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Peter Schneider wrote:
> It is all about "do I trust the other side". In our special case the backend
> is
> under our control as well, so we know what to expect from that server.
and you are sure there is no bug in the server-side implementation ... under
no ci
Hi Andres,
just a quick reply
>> [...]
>> As with most of the JavaScripts engine features, it seems to be that the
>> performance issue of eval() is decreasing with every new browser version.
>
> I don't have this impression. Do you have any tests/references for this
> assumption?
Sorry, that wa
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:40, Peter Schneider wrote:
>
> Checking the received JSON message before parsing it is a good point in any
> case, anyway. I'm not sure, but I think something like that can be found in
> the
> "contrib"...
>
No, that's already done when the response type is set to "appl
Hi Peter,
Am 16.12.2009 um 15:03 schrieb Peter Schneider:
[...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me
(except
regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
I think it's a bit more than just scoping. As far as I
Hi Derrell
> [...]
> Hi Peter,
>
> "eval() is evil" is a common phrase that helps discourage those who don't
> understand the possible consequences of using it from ever using it. There
> is nothing inherently evil about eval(). The input to eval() must be
> sanitized to ensure that there is no c
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:03, Peter Schneider wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> >> [...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
> >
> > Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
> > regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
>
> I think it's a bit more than jus
Hi Andreas,
>> [...] Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
>
> Why would it? There doesn't seem to be a real difference to me (except
> regarding scoping, but this should be irrelevant here).
I think it's a bit more than just scoping. As far as I remember the eval() call
starts a complete
Hi Peter,
Am 16.12.2009 um 10:28 schrieb Peter Schneider:
> while I was 'cleaning up' our code base I've come along the JSON
> class of
> qooxdoo.
> Is there any reason why it uses the evil eval() function for
> evaluating and
> parsing the backend responses? Wouldn't "Function" be the better
Hi folks,
while I was 'cleaning up' our code base I've come along the JSON class of
qooxdoo.
Is there any reason why it uses the evil eval() function for evaluating and
parsing the backend responses? Wouldn't "Function" be the better choice?
I've tried the following replacement in our application
13 matches
Mail list logo
