• oheso (unregistered) in reply to acid
    acid:
    Food for thought.

    Ginger herbal tea for thought.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to Xythar
    Xythar:
    I honestly didn't realise that people still programmed in Visual Basic in the "real world". Is there reason to? The last time I used Visual Basic was in high school.

    Unfortunately, the "real world" you are referring to mostly uses MS Office. And what do you use when you want to automate it? Guesses?

    But granted, I wouldn't want to touch VB again with a ten-foot pole. Not again.

  • John Muller (unregistered)

    (sigh) I was basically doing what's now known as 'AJAX' back in 2000, to make an interactive map of census data drawn with SVG in IE 5. Too bad I didn't give it a catchy name, then I could be famous.

  • Old timers (unregistered) in reply to acid
    acid:
    I pretty much only read TDWTF for the comments these days - today I wasn't disappointed. Oh, and I don't drink coffee anymore (although I love it) because the caffeine keeps me awake, nervous and dehydrated...

    Like some women that have been in my life before...

    But I digress.

    These days I stick to ginger herbal tea. Good for you, warming and with just a hint of spice.

    Oh, and ginger herbal tea doesn't contain ANY javascript or any other variation thereof, nor does it require IE or any other browser or non-browser or pseudo-browser to run. Stangely enough though, pouring a cup of it over the motherboard would pretty much close the window in question, whether the server meant to do it or not...

    Food for thought.

    Apparently, coffe is good for that disease...uhm what do you call it.....

    (sorry if this comes through multiple times - I keep getting an error when I try to post)

  • JayC (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Cowherd
    Anonymous Cowherd:
    Claxon:
    I've got a way that REALLY doesn't use javascript: 
    Private Sub closePage(ByRef page As System.Web.UI.Page)
        Dim s As String
        s = "Please press Alt + F4"
        page.RegisterClientScriptBlock("tjsClosePage", s)
    End Sub

    Although that only works on some OS's

    That would just give you a JS error and no text, nice idea though!

    He didn't include javascript tags, so, as I believe all related register stuff to be rendered within a form tag (with runat="server"), he'd be ok.

    BTW, the original article's code block didn't check to see if his script block was already registered! Isn't that kinda a WTF?

  • nasch (unregistered) in reply to Procedural
    Procedural:

    I prefer tall, smart and sweet. With long legs, full lips, sparkly eyes, an adventurous spirit and long long hair.

    Boobs. You forgot big boobs.

    Come on, somebody had to say it.

  • JayC (unregistered) in reply to nasch
    nasch:
    Procedural:

    I prefer tall, smart and sweet. With long legs, full lips, sparkly eyes, an adventurous spirit and long long hair.

    Boobs. You forgot big boobs.

    Come on, somebody had to say it.

    What about a shapely bum?

    (Not British, I just find that word/phrase funny)

  • JayC (unregistered) in reply to JayC
    JayC:
    nasch:
    Procedural:

    I prefer tall, smart and sweet. With long legs, full lips, sparkly eyes, an adventurous spirit and long long hair.

    Boobs. You forgot big boobs.

    Come on, somebody had to say it.

    What about a shapely bum?

    (Not British, I just find that word/phrase funny)

    Ah Yes, The The B's: Brains, Boobs, and Bum..

    The Sorority Law Firm...

    ...

    What?!

  • Dave G. (unregistered)

    I like my Male Feminists like I like my submarines - silent, 1000 feet underwater, and without internet access.

  • tentux (unregistered)
    Billy :
    Typical of a workplace. Two brace-faced pre-teens wasting time arguing over what is server side code, when really what does it matter to a client? They asked for the window to close sheesh...
    Yes, lets all ignore *how* things work and not worry when our co-workers don't understand some very simple concepts and see how that works out... Typical of the workplace, always some guy who doesn't care how it works, just wants it to work.
  • Windows 95/98 hater (unregistered)

    Actually windows 95, 98 and me can be crashed completely (BSOD) by using an image tag in html that goes something like this:

    [image]

    or linking to CON\CON will also work, people will just have to click on the link.

  • Mr.'; Drop Database -- (unregistered) in reply to Shinobu
    Shinobu:
    Okay, I don't believe for a second that the cow-orker believes that he isn't using JS, so I think the conversation was faked. I don't know what the original conversation was like exactly, but I think along the lines of Sasha didn't understand that you could initiate client-side behaviour remotely in any way, and because he thought he knew why, it was useless talking to him and he had to be shown an example, putting him in his place. Then his ego was hurt and he complains about it here.
    I agree, that's a lot more plausible than the article.
  • Thought, the hungry troll (unregistered) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    acid:
    Food for thought.

    Ginger herbal tea for thought.

    Thot no like tee! Give thot food!

  • (cs)

    The "lang" attribute for "script" tag should not be used.

    <script type="text/javascript">window.close();</script>

    is the right form. 3 pages of witty comments and nobody mentioned that yet?

  • (cs)

    I like my women like I like my coffee... With a slice of pie

    Anyway, to all te VB flamers: Yes, VB sees usage IRL. And it kicks ass and takes names too. It's ideal for writing business logic behid complex internet portals for instance, because you can forget about all the low-level stuff Java and C++ throw at you. Also, UI design in the later versions (VS 2005 and above) works like a cherm. OOP is implemeted to its full extent, the IDE is absolutely fantastic etc.

    I'll admit VB had a rocky road getting to where it stands today, and it's not suited for every given situation, but still shouldn't be dismissed so lightly.

  • dew|frost (unregistered) in reply to mvp
    mvp:
    Real WTF is that window.close() call in emitted string is actually commented out. So this procedure wouldn't work :-)
    There might be a reason why you can find "commented out" JS within a script tag: retrocompatibility (e.g. see http://www.javascripter.net/faq/hidingjs.htm ). BTW, @Kiss me I'm Polish : yes, somebody did mention it (#279792) -- yet the "language=javascript" form was deprecated in the HTML 4.01 spec but it's still supported, for retrocompatibility again.
    Chris:
    Unfortunately, the "real world" you are referring to mostly uses MS Office. And what do you use when you want to automate it? Guesses?
    I've never been able to understand the difference between VBA and guesses... and after reading Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols' "Insecure by Design" ( http://blogs.computerworld.com/insecure_by_design_ms_office_formats ) I start to wonder why the "real world" should continue using MS Office. Ah, but then they continue using guns, so that should be a minor issue.
  • Gonads (unregistered) in reply to Mr.'; Drop Database --

    Well done, you've correctly summarised 98% of the articles on this shitty site.

  • Drew (unregistered) in reply to ih8u

    Ha ha... the number of projects I've done using "macros" in Excel (a.k.a. VBA)... but... oh, no I've not written any code.

    Code puts the fear of god into people. Macros, everyone knows are ok... right?

  • y0da (unregistered) in reply to Kiss me I'm Polish
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    The "lang" attribute for "script" tag should not be used. <script type="text/javascript">window.close();</script> is the right form. 3 pages of witty comments and nobody mentioned that yet?

    Yes they did. See page 2.

  • London Developer (unregistered) in reply to AdT
    AdT:
    lolwtf:
    Well, you could use VBScript. No Javascript at all.

    This will only work with IE, not with actual browsers.

    Haha! I was thinking the same then read further down and saw this... IE isn't a browser...It's a bag of s#1t3!!!

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Some Male Feminist
    Some Male Feminist:
    I like my women self-defined. She defines her own strong points and my reason to interact with her is self-evident. However, it does not follow that she has reason to interact with me; that part is up to me.

    Or, to dumb it way down:

    Treat women as people, and if you want to define someone, start with yourself.

    Nice try but it's common knowledge that the whole "white knight" strategy just doesn't work. Women don't want an androgynous man-boy who appreciates their feminine side, they want a fucking MAN!
  • Wizard Stan (unregistered) in reply to Heron
    Heron:
    Not THAT Alex:
    Do you know what the "J" in AJAX stands for? I'm guessing the answer is no.

    Apparently, neither do you.

    (For the lazy: Ajax's creator didn't intend it to be an acronym, simply a name for the technology; other people subsequently prodded the name with sticks it until it became a suitable acronym.)

    Also, Google is not a verb commonly used to mean "search the web", Xerox doesn't mean "photocopy", Coke isn't generically used to mean "carbonated beverage" in the Southern US, and a penguin is not the Linux mascot. Because names and ideas always mean exactly what the original creator intended them to mean.

  • valetudo (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Some Male Feminist:
    I like my women self-defined. She defines her own strong points and my reason to interact with her is self-evident. However, it does not follow that she has reason to interact with me; that part is up to me.

    Or, to dumb it way down:

    Treat women as people, and if you want to define someone, start with yourself.

    Nice try but it's common knowledge that the whole "white knight" strategy just doesn't work. Women don't want an androgynous man-boy who appreciates their feminine side, they want a fucking MAN!

    And failing getting a man, they are perfectly happy with an asshole. Which I kindof noticed while in my teens and opted for being an asshole, since not only is it easier, but its more fun. ;)

  • Slacker Daddy (unregistered) in reply to Kef Schecter

    Kef, you are joking right or are you Sascha's cow orker in disguise? you know that the JavaScript is ran in the browser regardless of it being static from a file or dynamic from a script...right? you know this?

    -slack

  • (cs)

    I don't drink coffee.

    I don't like coffee.

  • (cs) in reply to valetudo
    valetudo:
    Anonymous:
    Some Male Feminist:
    I like my women self-defined. She defines her own strong points and my reason to interact with her is self-evident. However, it does not follow that she has reason to interact with me; that part is up to me.

    Or, to dumb it way down:

    Treat women as people, and if you want to define someone, start with yourself.

    Nice try but it's common knowledge that the whole "white knight" strategy just doesn't work. Women don't want an androgynous man-boy who appreciates their feminine side, they want a fucking MAN!

    And failing getting a man, they are perfectly happy with an asshole. Which I kindof noticed while in my teens and opted for being an asshole, since not only is it easier, but its more fun. ;)

    Or a woman

  • qwertyuiop (unregistered)

    I like my coffe like I like my women: naked and in for legs.

  • Pickle Pumpers (unregistered)

    So let's see if we can translate what actually happened though the BS transmogrifier:

    Sascha's teammate said he could make a browser window close using ASP, without writing any JavaScript in the HTML, which he then cleverly did. A technicallity for sure but that's what clever does.

    Sascha on the other hand couldn't admit that he was unable to think outside the box so the other person must therefor be an idiot. I'll bet Sascha knows a lot of "idiots."

    Clearly another WTF winner.

  • Steve (unregistered)

    Well, you can close the window of the client machine from the server if you work for the local electric utility and you can figure out which grid the client is connecting from.

    CloseClientWindow() { ... ShutoffGrid(gridid); ... }

    bugs: might not work if user is using a battery backup.

  • Procedural (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Some Male Feminist:
    I like my women self-defined. She defines her own strong points and my reason to interact with her is self-evident. However, it does not follow that she has reason to interact with me; that part is up to me.

    Or, to dumb it way down:

    Treat women as people, and if you want to define someone, start with yourself.

    Nice try but it's common knowledge that the whole "white knight" strategy just doesn't work. Women don't want an androgynous man-boy who appreciates their feminine side, they want a fucking MAN!

    No no, it works fine.

    (What are you doing Anonymous ? The more he thinks like he does the less likely he is to be competition.)

  • (cs) in reply to Procedural
    Procedural:
    Anonymous:
    Some Male Feminist:
    I like my women self-defined. She defines her own strong points and my reason to interact with her is self-evident. However, it does not follow that she has reason to interact with me; that part is up to me.

    Or, to dumb it way down:

    Treat women as people, and if you want to define someone, start with yourself.

    Nice try but it's common knowledge that the whole "white knight" strategy just doesn't work. Women don't want an androgynous man-boy who appreciates their feminine side, they want a fucking MAN!
    No no, it works fine.

    (What are you doing Anonymous ? The more he thinks like he does the less likely he is to be competition.)

    Nah. He's going to spend his weekday evenings letting her cry on his shoulder about how bad her boyfriend treats her, and then watch her ride off on the back of bad boy's Harley come the weekend.

  • Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to Heron
    Heron:
    Not THAT Alex:
    Do you know what the "J" in AJAX stands for? I'm guessing the answer is no.

    Apparently, neither do you.

    (For the lazy: Ajax's creator didn't intend it to be an acronym, simply a name for the technology; other people subsequently prodded the name with sticks it until it became a suitable acronym.)

    It's called a Bacronym. They're quite common. PHP is a similar example, though that was always an acronym. PHP didn't always mean 'PHP Hypertext Preprocessor'.

    But you knew that, right?

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Chris
    Chris:
    Xythar:
    I honestly didn't realise that people still programmed in Visual Basic in the "real world". Is there reason to? The last time I used Visual Basic was in high school.
    Unfortunately, the "real world" you are referring to mostly uses MS Office. And what do you use when you want to automate it? Guesses?
    OK, I'll take a guess. You'd use the provided .NET interop assemblies to interface with Office via an application written in C#. How'd I do?
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Pickle Pumpers
    Pickle Pumpers:
    So let's see if we can translate what actually happened though the BS transmogrifier:

    Sascha's teammate said he could make a browser window close using ASP, without writing any JavaScript in the HTML, which he then cleverly did. A technicallity for sure but that's what clever does.

    Sascha on the other hand couldn't admit that he was unable to think outside the box so the other person must therefor be an idiot. I'll bet Sascha knows a lot of "idiots."

    Clearly another WTF winner.

    Troll or retard? I'm leaning towards troll but you never can tell round here, I think we get kids from school and all sorts of other non-professionals around here these days.

  • (cs)

    Y'see, this is why I don't like ASP.NET one bit.

    A language like PHP allows you to place a thick line between server-side and client-side code, while ASP.NET just muddles it up somewhere.

  • (cs) in reply to MiffTheFox
    MiffTheFox:
    Y'see, this is why I don't like ASP.NET one bit.

    A language like PHP allows you to place a thick line between server-side and client-side code, while ASP.NET just muddles it up somewhere.

    The client requests a web page. The server sends that page to the client. It may be static, with javascript embedded, or it may be created on the fly, with javascript embedded. Either way, a web page is sent to the client, where that client gets to decide what it should do about any javascript embedded in what it received.

    It isn't a difficult concept, and it isn't muddled.

  • someguy (unregistered)

    just keep OutputDOSAttack() up-to-date and call it whenever. No Javascript required.

  • (cs) in reply to Wizard Stan
    Wizard Stan:
    a penguin is not the Linux mascot. Because names and ideas always mean exactly what the original creator intended them to mean.

    Actually, according to Wikipedia, "The concept of the Linux mascot being a penguin came from Linus Torvalds"

    So yes it is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux

  • SwedishChef (unregistered) in reply to MiffTheFox
    MiffTheFox:
    Y'see, this is why I don't like ASP.NET one bit.

    A language like PHP allows you to place a thick line between server-side and client-side code, while ASP.NET just muddles it up somewhere.

    I get the troll

    but I just have to...

    <?php echo '<script type="JavaScript"> ... </script>';?>

    boy, do I feel clever all of a sudden!

  • Mr.'; Drop Database -- (unregistered) in reply to dew|frost
    dew|frost:
    mvp:
    Real WTF is that window.close() call in emitted string is actually commented out. So this procedure wouldn't work :-)
    There might be a reason why you can find "commented out" JS within a script tag: retrocompatibility (e.g. see http://www.javascripter.net/faq/hidingjs.htm ).
    That's not the reason. (The idea that script and style elements shouldn't be rendered is as old as tables.) The real reason is XHTML. If you have a script embedded in an XHTML document, any less-than symbols in it must be escaped as < unless the whole thing is a comment. (Making the whole thing a comment also prevents you from using the decrement operator, but that's no great loss.)
  • Marshall (unregistered) in reply to C4I_Officer

    I must have taken too many stupid pills this morning so could you please explain:

    1 .. what does "spamming" a multithreaded function mean? Spam I know, multithreaded I know but I can't seem to put them together in any way that relates to your wording.

    2 .. since it is a thesis (i.e. research, not real world) what has the length of time that the experiment would run have to do with anything?

    (As an ex-lecturer one of the hardest things I found was to get a student to look at things in a different way from one that they "already knew". This usually presented when giving an assignment with instructions to use the new technique when the student "already knew" a "better solution". I actually didn't care about the solution, just the process and hence the learning that would take place.)

  • Mike (unregistered)

    It never fails to amaze me that people with no real grasp of internet architecture are writing internet applications. I've seen some doozies.

    Oh, BTW, string concatenation is bad. Use System.Text.StringBuilder?

  • dew|frost (unregistered) in reply to Mr.'; Drop Database --
    Mr.'; Drop Database --:
    That's not the reason. (The idea that script and style elements shouldn't be rendered is as old as tables.) The real reason is XHTML. If you have a script embedded in an XHTML document, any less-than symbols in it must be escaped as < unless the whole thing is a comment. (Making the whole thing a comment also prevents you from using the decrement operator, but that's no great loss.)
    You are right. I was thinking HTML 3.2 spec.
  • teh esse (unregistered) in reply to Dlareg

    please keep sasha's co-worker bound.

  • validus (unregistered) in reply to valetudo
    valetudo:
    And failing getting a man, they are perfectly happy with an asshole. Which I kindof noticed while in my teens and opted for being an asshole, since not only is it easier, but its more fun. ;)

    Have you ever met anyone who were happy without an asshole?

  • Walter T. Franklin (unregistered) in reply to Einsidler

    I actually think it's needs more cowbell....

  • Connochaetes (unregistered) in reply to steenbergh
    steenbergh:
    Anyway, to all te VB flamers: Yes, VB sees usage IRL. And it kicks ass and takes names too. It's ideal for writing business logic behid complex internet portals for instance, because you can forget about all the low-level stuff Java and C++ throw at you.

    Ah, yes, Java is a well-known low-level language. That explains why it has manual memory management, compiles directly to native machine code, and has no underlying abstraction like, I dunno, an object-oriented model.

    And I love my women like I like my coffee: three times a day.

  • Wyrd (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    I would seriously question the continued retention of Sascha's co-worker. How can anyone write out the script block (<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript'>) without realising that they're emitting Javascript? Talk about cargo cult, the guy clearly has no idea what his code is doing.
    Actually, that's not how I read the article. To me, it seemed like *Sascha* was saying, "no, no, there's no possible way any server-side code can interact with the user's web browser." And, the way I read it, it was *Sascha* that got showed up. After all, even though closePage( ) Sub will cause JavaScript script to be *generated* when it's executed, the closePage( ) Sub itself is *not* JavaScript.

    So, the way I read it, Sascha's coworker was fully aware that closePage( ) emits JavaScript. It was just Sascha that (hopefully only briefly) forgot, probably because he'd just recently been (re-)schooled in the theoretical philosophies of server side coding, that it's usually possible to wrap one language inside another.

    Or, OTOH, I could be totally wrong. ;-)

    -- Furry cows moo and decompress.

  • fcb (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Kef Schecter:
    Anonymous:
    How can anyone write out the script block (<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JavaScript'>) without realising that they're emitting Javascript?
    I doubt that was actually the case. The point was to carry the operation out from the server side, which was what happened. Yes, that doesn't literally comply with Sascha's command to "do it without JavaScript", but it complies with the spirit in which it was intended: the server side initiating what's normally client-side behavior.
    • Kef
    I think the point of this WTF is that Sascha's co-worker did not understand that his solution was using Javascript, even though he was registering (from server-side) a script block that was clearly marked "LANGUAGE='JavaScript'". After all, Sascha specifically asked "just show me how you closed the web browser window without using JavaScript!" and the coder turned over his Javascript solution. I'm pretty sure he had no idea that was registering client-side Javascript, even though it is written right there in the script block.

    Does anybody still use <script language="JavaScript"> instead of <script type="text/javascript"> ?</p> </script>

  • Timothy Baggerson (unregistered) in reply to fcb

    Yep.

Leave a comment on “What Fundamental Underpinning?”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article