If you have a problem with me then perhaps you should take it to Private Messages. First you publically wish that I was dead, and now you want me banned. And I don't even know you.

We may settle our differences in private rather than have you continue to undermine the community here with your unwarranted attacks.
Posted on 2004-05-22 17:36:34 by iblis
E?in, the paint program is not the producer - you are silly. :) Computers don't produce much.
Posted on 2004-05-22 18:20:03 by bitRAKE
but its crazy to say the browser created it

I not say that the broswer create it, I say, when the browser open a page of a specific type, the server know what type is and activate say some "flags", with that call programs or functions and process the file and send a stream to the client, it process the stream and interpretate it, also can return a stream to the server and it will take care of the necesary actions, (pass the string to a php file and interpretit and rereturn a answer).

Yes, is crazy, but how you will use the server, database and php without it?, I see that is a diferent way of programming than a local app that access a database.

There is where the problem I think is.
Miss that programming for a web is the same that programm locally.

For example, time a go bitRAKE say some about file systems, I support that will be interesting that it was represented more by a database or other thing more abstract than a filesystem structure, but think what will happend, you are changing the normal way of access, when you change some in the enviroment, you change the whole picture, a more abstract filesystem will also impact how make programms perhaps in the part that only the itself program can modify his own configuration, but at the end you still doing programs.

Now go to the net, there you have diferent computers connected with each other, all in some time will need access the same information, also they will need requesat actions in a standarized way, because you will not handle all the diferent ways that not only the OS and architecture of the computer have, but how diferent languages do diferent calls.

For handle calls, is necesary that the client (broswer) can send the input-data and the name of the function to call also not only that, but say in what module is, for example newpost.php... hey you see a similarity between a dll and this... You should see it, because in fact is that.... remote linking at runtime :) or I should say remote invoking, also at server side that execution depend in the actual architecture and OS, but the answer will be sended other time in a standarized way.

Yes for handle information in diferent plataforms is necesary break the complete aplication in parts, when some parts are united the application take a diferent flavour.

Maybe you are still thinking that the broswer is not necesary, because all the work is done by the server and php and the database.

Lets see that..

For example, for add "things" to your program have diferent ways, for example, rewrite the application and launch a new app, write in a way of plug-ins and procide the plug-ins, other way can be write a little interpreter, that follow some rules and let the aplication modify itself with a internal interpreter (IIRC 3dstudio do that??).

Follow the internal interpreter, but that will depend that all the broswer implement his interpreter (see js, vbs, etc), you know that solutions are ok, maybe are some restrictions, also some browser will not adapt or implement x script.... now how you standarize that... how I can add functionality to my cross app (all the net), the solution is let that the server have the interpreter.

That is a little tricky (you think that?) because the work is at the server side, and the browser only implement some formath, show buttons in general forms, change color and send or call remote functions in some "extrange way" because instead of pushes directions of memory, is sended stream with info on arguments, nameOfFunction and nameWhere is implemented. Then you are thinking that maybe the info in a input text, yes, it is new text recieved by the broswer, but that is the only usefull, because in fact the browser is only a front end

I will say you some, if you still breaking the most simple application and only let the GUI it is a front-end, the interaction with this front-end let you call diferent functions that you can not call directly, if you break the more complex one, lets say photoshop, it have a front end... that is the GUI a front end that let you call all the internall functions.

And here we have here the final break in doing applications for a web, how I represent the same data in diferents architectures and OS??? if not all Have MessageBox or PaintString, that is for what is necesary the broswers and become a "front-end" with the capacity to invoke remote functions, and the capacity to interpret some that single like html, and have a remote script/interpreter, that serve for modify the look of the application (yes equal tan implement a script for add new things to your app)

If you continue to this point, you can see maybe easy that a broswer can generate data, the granularity of the itself programm is because the enviroment that is aimed: diferent OS, architectures, methods of display, diferent type calls. With the objetive of share information and in the last times modificate it and make new, hope the future will say :D.

For conclude, if I sound a little repetitive is because I whant to state that the problem solved in the local app and with the browser is the same, but with the "glue" of the diferent applications over the net for handle the same problem, they are breaked for a variety of reasons exposed here.

You see that the solution for the same problem is impacted in a great way be the enviroment where it need be designed (locally or for a net).

Also dont delete, because I invert much time writing this stuff :)

Have a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-05-22 18:37:09 by rea
bitRAKE, that thought was running through my head as I typed the earlier reply and of course you are right. I suppose what I am thinking is that a paint program was written to create and manipulate images and it uses the os to achieve that aim. Similarly the forum code was designed do allow us to create these threads and it uses the browser to achieve that (or rather part of that) Yes we are the producers, the creators, but I would see the paint program or the forum code as the active software or tool we use and you could perhaps call the browser and os passive software is that respect.

I think hgb?s point (and don?t worry I won?t be deleting anything) is that these passive bits of software play such an important and integral role that its unfair to not see them as actively contributing to what?s created. And perhaps he?s right. But as I said above what?s it matter anyway, it would change nothing except maybe egos of some of the people involved. That may be reason enough for them to continue the debate, I don?t think it applies to me.
Posted on 2004-05-22 19:16:16 by Eóin
E?in, the point I would like to make is that it is impossible to distinguish the consumer-ness of a browser and a paint program. You say they are at different levels of abstraction and that is very true, but it still remains a fact that neither one produces. One is not more passive than the other - they are both passive.

It does change something. It is important to be aware of the user illusion - these machines are not producers. They continue to be a tool - like a hammer. The distinction trying to be made is similar to saying a ruler is a different tool from a hammer - the hammer does the producing and the ruler is just a guide. When in reality one only has value over the other if it is currently needed to do work. :)
Posted on 2004-05-22 20:16:35 by bitRAKE
Afternoon, Rickey.

I think the main difference between a paint program and a browser is that the functionality to allow a user to produce something is *inside* the paint program itself, whereas the functionality to allow a user to prouce anything with a browser is *outside* the browser.

This also means that applications which rely on other external applications/ utilities have minimal producing capabilites (well... this actually fully depends of that application - some are fully capable in their own right and just use external code/ utilities/ plugins/ etc to *extend* its functionality).

A browser doesn't produce anything. it just displays information/ data and sends and supplied data on to whatever program is used which *does* do the producing/ manipulation/ creation/ etc of data.

Using the idea that a paint program uses the OS and GDI as the producer part of it is absurd. That would mean *every* program uses OS extension functions to do any producing.
That's not true. It's still the application which allows the functionality to do anything.
And browsers do not use those functions to produce anything - it just passes the data onto *another* program which *does* use those functions to produce.

Posted on 2004-05-22 20:42:32 by Scronty

Yes apparently the audience was overestimated. The people here don't seem to be familiar with browsers and the producer/consumer concepts?

For the rest, you people are digging way too deep, and make statements without any relevance. As I say, each browser is different because it runs on a different computer.
Do you hate it that much that I'm right, that you have to dissect everything until it loses any meaning whatsoever?

no, you didn't lay out a (for this discussion) correct definition of 'produce' and 'consume' from the start (like you're supposed to to start a correct discussion) and now it's too late, people gave their own meaning to them and are running with it. Don't blame others for your apparant lack in debational skills.

Given whatever definition browsers take in data and make up a visual representation of it, nothing about that is fixed so they both produce as well as consume.
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:01:04 by Hiroshimator
My first post contained a description of both concepts.
I thought that would be enough, but as I said, I overestimated the audience. I did give a description, so don't pin it all on me. Still, most people voted for consumer, so I suppose that my explanation was not that hard to understand for most people.

And the 'visual representation' is nonsense. I said information, and information is abstract.
5 and five are a different visual representation, but the same information. So even though not all browsers may draw the exact same pixels, they would have to be very broken to not convey the same information.

As I say, I overestimated the audience, I did not think I would even have to explain what information is, I thought it was a common concept in the programming world. Same goes for browsers.
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:26:34 by Scali
While we're nit picking the term "information" has completely misused here. Ibilis is perfectly correct when he says "Visual information is information, like it or not". And in that respect he also correct to say a browser is an information producer. Unfortunately I don't think Scali means information in that basic definition, he seems to mean it in a more abstract notion of products or creations and what they mean. There's nothing wrong with meaning that, but he hasn't ever made it clear.

bitRAKE, just getting silly here for a second. Lets say I'm drawing a technical diagram old pencil and paper style so I have those two tools, I imagine I'd also have set squares, compass, eraser, etc. I imagine Its fair to say they're all tools, all doing what hey were made to do and aiding me in my creation. I think its also fair to therefore liken them to a paint software ot forum code in the above examples. Bt what if we start taking everything into account; the table, the chair, lighting, music in the background perhaps and this list could go on and on. In many ways these can be likened to the os or browser, these are (not all) necessary for the task at hand but none were necessarily made to do aid in the drawing of technical diagrams. Yes table, lights and chair could all have been made specifically for this purpose but I'm not making an important point here so lets not get technical.

The unimportant point I'm tryin to make is that its silly to try and distinguish between tools made for a purpose and tools which just proved useful. But still something inside me seems to make that distinction, human nature perhaps? Or just me? :)

Just a quick edit in response to the above which I missed cause I'm a slow typer :rolleyes: . 5 and five are only the same information in specific contexts, in others they are worlds apart. Scali, such simplifications on your part are what cause the ambiguity here
Posted on 2004-05-23 06:35:57 by Eóin
That is, if you use one browser, will you get different information than when you use another browser?
Or is it more like a tv? No matter what tv, you tune into the same channels/information.

Apparently to some people it was not clear that I meant the information that originated from the webserver (as it originates from the TV studio in the TV-analogy).
Obviously I tried to make it clear, but I failed, because I overestimated the audience. You need to spoonfeed some people, or write everything like a lawyer, covering up every single possible hole that one might exploit.
I find that rather childish. I used basic terms in the software engineering world, and I expected people to understand (and more importantly: trying to understand) what I meant, but we have people here that deliberately misinterpret things in order to destroy the entire thread, and insult other people. I find that rude and immature, and I think that such people should be reprimanded for disturbing the peace on this forum.

The civilised thing to do when something is not entirely clear to you, is to ask the person what he means. Not screaming that he is wrong, and insulting him for it, while it is you who is causing the problem.

And 5 and five are definitely the same information, just different representations (I ofcourse mean the amount of 5, and not the ASCII representation of it, or something).
If I say that I have 5 apples, that is exactly the same as saying I have five apples. I could even say it in Dutch or any other language, and it is still the exact same information. Likewise the information received from the server is the same for every browser, and here lies the diference with producers. Producers don't receive their information from external sources, they produce it themselves, and therefore the information produced by different producers may vary.
Posted on 2004-05-23 07:15:08 by Scali
Afternoon, E?in.

Are you really saying that 5 != five?

Posted on 2004-05-23 07:19:35 by Scronty

Since donkey and I can not agree on this subject, I wonder what you people think.
Does a browser produce information, or consume?
That is, if you use one browser, will you get different information than when you use another browser?
Or is it more like a tv? No matter what tv, you tune into the same channels/information.

2 much free time again. :-)
Browsers are tools, it's up to the user to show wisdom and use it carefully and in moderation.

You will get the same information no matter what browser (no conspiracy here) but I have found that use multiple search engines will show additional information that using just one engine.

Have a great weekend.
Posted on 2004-05-23 07:24:58 by skywalker
Scronty, numericially 5 and five are equal of course, but language can have so much more meaning in various different contexts that they will never be completly identical.

Scali, yes the information recieved by the browser is the same in every browser, but we rarly see that information. We see the browsers interpetation of it, does the fact that that interpetation has been standardised take from it? I can't see why it would.

The main gist of your argument seems to be that since a page conveys the same meaning in different browsers the browsers aren't contributing anything. But thats only the case if both browser fully support the underlying code. I could draw the same picture in different paint programs if they allowed me to use the same techniques.

Basically when we create something on a computer(s) there are many layers involved. We seem to be trying to decide which layer should get the credit, or rather just that the browser layer doesn't deserve the credit. While I agree with that the browser layer doesn't deserve the credit. Its pretty hard to justify giving any layer the credit, they are all ignorant of what they do, they are all mindless tools as others have said before.
Posted on 2004-05-23 08:11:00 by Eóin
We see the browsers interpetation of it, does the fact that that interpetation has been standardised take from it? I can't see why it would.

I think it does. They all show the same information. Want to verify it? Try installing as many browsers as you can find, and use each and every one to view this forum, then tell me if you can still read and post to the same threads, and read the same info.

The main gist of your argument seems to be that since a page conveys the same meaning in different browsers the browsers aren't contributing anything. But thats only the case if both browser fully support the underlying code. I could draw the same picture in different paint programs if they allowed me to use the same techniques.

Well that's the point. Browsers can only remove information at most, if they do not know a way to represent it (and every decent website should be constructed in such a way that the important information is not removed, for an acceptable set of popular browsers, at least, if presenting information is their primary goal).
But if you need to draw a picture in a certain way (need to PRODUCE), you need to have a paint program that allows you to. Any other program would be useless. Once the picture is done, any image viewer will be able to view it in the same way. God it's so incredibly obvious, are assembly programmers that out of tune?
The same goes for creating a webpage. Once it is created, it will work in many browsers (assuming that the program uses common HTML features), but the creation itself can be vastly different from one program to the next.

they are all ignorant of what they do

That is too easy.
As I already said, a browser doesn't know ANYTHING... The reply I'm sending here is plain ASCII text, and I have to manually add bbcode tags. An information producer would at least know how to produce such tags and provide me with an easy way to add them to my text, and also keep them out of my sight, since they are not useful information to me as raw ASCII text. I only want to see their result.

Posted on 2004-05-23 08:41:40 by Scali
Scali, if I need to draw a picture in a certain way I need a program that allows me to do that. Similarly if I need to view a webpage I need a browser that allows me to do that. The problem is Scali that I tend to agree with your conclusions, your logic is twisted and flawed. The notion that because you have to manually add bbcodes tags when typing these threads and not see the result until its submitted makes the browser fundamentally different from say a WYSIWYG editor is an extraordinary statment. In fact its such an extraordinary statment that even though I agree with your conclusion (the main one) I still find myself argueing against you.

Well, I don't think I done this before, but here goes a personal attack against a forum member, you Scali are an arrogant, self centered person, convinced that when someone doesn't understand that they must be stupid when in fact it is your inability to express yourself and your assumptions that really causes the problems. I feel sorry really because the world must seem like such a frustating place surrounded as you are by people you can't communicate with.
Posted on 2004-05-23 09:13:35 by Eóin
That is right, I hate most people, because they are too stupid to reason with. I can only relate to the chosen few. Apparently some asm programmers are not among those. May I point out that the majority still agrees with me.
My logic is not twisted and flawed, it is just above your level of comprehension. And it is rather rude to insult me for that, not to mention against forum policy.

The notion that because you have to manually add bbcodes tags when typing these threads and not see the result until its submitted makes the browser fundamentally different from say a WYSIWYG editor is an extraordinary statment.

Again you did not read or understand the whole thing. I used this to demonstrate that the browser does not know anything about the data it is sending to the server, while producers would know how to interpret or manipulate the data, since that is a requirement for a producer. It's so simple and logical that it hurts.
Posted on 2004-05-23 09:23:34 by Scali
And at what level does any program understand? Actually don't bother answering that, I've got to go soon anyway, I must return to my weekday life without internet access but frankly it couldn't have come at a better time cause I've let myself down by getting dragged so far into this mess.
Posted on 2004-05-23 09:35:40 by Eóin
I have already answered that question earlier. Read more carefully. I never said it had to understand ('know about' != 'understand' anyway, another bad interpretation of words, as a result of a lack of understanding?), but it has to offer functionality, there have been multiple posts on the subject, both from me and others.
Posted on 2004-05-23 09:38:23 by Scali
I find it pretty ironic that you keep talking about what is or is not against the policy of this forum where clearly you're one of those that doesn't understand it.

Could you actually demonstrate that by now mythical "level of comprehension" of yours once and abide by it?
Posted on 2004-05-23 12:51:34 by Hiroshimator
I know what the forum policy is, problem is that it doesn't apply to me. There are different rules when it comes to me. I can abide by the policy perfectly and still be banned.

Oh and my "level of comprehension" is not that mythical at all. Judging from the poll, about 67% of the voters have the same level of comprehension.
Posted on 2004-05-23 14:14:30 by Scali