<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1441233</id>
	<title>Learning JQuery 1.3</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263226500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ross.ws/" rel="nofollow">Michael J. Ross</a> writes <i>"Of all Web technologies, JavaScript may have the most checkered past &mdash; first heralded as a powerful object-oriented language for jazzing up Web pages, but later condemned as a source of spammy pop-up windows and horrid animations polluting websites everywhere.  Yet during the past several years, Web designers and developers are increasingly using JavaScript unobtrusively, for client-site interactivity &mdash; as a supplement to server-side functionality, not a replacement, and built upon standards-compliant (X)HTML and CSS.  As a result, the once-derided language is now enjoying a true resurgence in interest and use.  This has been bolstered by the proliferation of JavaScript libraries, of which <a href="http://jquery.com/">jQuery</a> is clearly the front runner.  Web programmers seeking to get up to speed on this exciting resource can turn to <em>Learning jQuery 1.3: Better Interaction Design and Web Development with Simple JavaScript Techniques</em>."</i> Keep reading for the rest of Michael's review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael J. Ross writes " Of all Web technologies , JavaScript may have the most checkered past    first heralded as a powerful object-oriented language for jazzing up Web pages , but later condemned as a source of spammy pop-up windows and horrid animations polluting websites everywhere .
Yet during the past several years , Web designers and developers are increasingly using JavaScript unobtrusively , for client-site interactivity    as a supplement to server-side functionality , not a replacement , and built upon standards-compliant ( X ) HTML and CSS .
As a result , the once-derided language is now enjoying a true resurgence in interest and use .
This has been bolstered by the proliferation of JavaScript libraries , of which jQuery is clearly the front runner .
Web programmers seeking to get up to speed on this exciting resource can turn to Learning jQuery 1.3 : Better Interaction Design and Web Development with Simple JavaScript Techniques .
" Keep reading for the rest of Michael 's review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael J. Ross writes "Of all Web technologies, JavaScript may have the most checkered past — first heralded as a powerful object-oriented language for jazzing up Web pages, but later condemned as a source of spammy pop-up windows and horrid animations polluting websites everywhere.
Yet during the past several years, Web designers and developers are increasingly using JavaScript unobtrusively, for client-site interactivity — as a supplement to server-side functionality, not a replacement, and built upon standards-compliant (X)HTML and CSS.
As a result, the once-derided language is now enjoying a true resurgence in interest and use.
This has been bolstered by the proliferation of JavaScript libraries, of which jQuery is clearly the front runner.
Web programmers seeking to get up to speed on this exciting resource can turn to Learning jQuery 1.3: Better Interaction Design and Web Development with Simple JavaScript Techniques.
" Keep reading for the rest of Michael's review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726392</id>
	<title>Re:What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>reed</author>
	<datestamp>1263239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out Google Web Toolkit or Pyjamas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Google Web Toolkit or Pyjamas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Google Web Toolkit or Pyjamas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726452</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>losinggeneration</author>
	<datestamp>1263240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Javascript uses a form of OOP called prototype-based. Just because it's not class-based doesn't mean it's not OOP. Now please go ahead and look it up if you still have doubts. After a bit of reading it should become quite clear that you've been misinformed about what exactly is OOP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript uses a form of OOP called prototype-based .
Just because it 's not class-based does n't mean it 's not OOP .
Now please go ahead and look it up if you still have doubts .
After a bit of reading it should become quite clear that you 've been misinformed about what exactly is OOP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript uses a form of OOP called prototype-based.
Just because it's not class-based doesn't mean it's not OOP.
Now please go ahead and look it up if you still have doubts.
After a bit of reading it should become quite clear that you've been misinformed about what exactly is OOP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30781556</id>
	<title>Re:What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>crh3675</author>
	<datestamp>1263582960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there is no silver bullet towards building web sites and even web apps.  Problem is always about proper and cohesive implementation.  With ridiculous turnaround times for many clients, jQuery makes it less painful to implement solutions.  I really don't spend anytime integrating jQuery solutions that create or have cross-browser issues.  Those issues are mostly with CSS and XHTML layout and not a problem with the library.

I enjoy working with jQuery and I create useful UI solutions with it.  Is it the best library to work with?  Not sure but I use it very well to find practical solutions for my UI needs.  It sounds like your perspective is that of a programmer that wants little to do with handling the UI and I can fully understand that mindset.  Which makes even more sense to have a UI specialist in jQuery or the latter to implement the best solutions for the frontend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is no silver bullet towards building web sites and even web apps .
Problem is always about proper and cohesive implementation .
With ridiculous turnaround times for many clients , jQuery makes it less painful to implement solutions .
I really do n't spend anytime integrating jQuery solutions that create or have cross-browser issues .
Those issues are mostly with CSS and XHTML layout and not a problem with the library .
I enjoy working with jQuery and I create useful UI solutions with it .
Is it the best library to work with ?
Not sure but I use it very well to find practical solutions for my UI needs .
It sounds like your perspective is that of a programmer that wants little to do with handling the UI and I can fully understand that mindset .
Which makes even more sense to have a UI specialist in jQuery or the latter to implement the best solutions for the frontend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is no silver bullet towards building web sites and even web apps.
Problem is always about proper and cohesive implementation.
With ridiculous turnaround times for many clients, jQuery makes it less painful to implement solutions.
I really don't spend anytime integrating jQuery solutions that create or have cross-browser issues.
Those issues are mostly with CSS and XHTML layout and not a problem with the library.
I enjoy working with jQuery and I create useful UI solutions with it.
Is it the best library to work with?
Not sure but I use it very well to find practical solutions for my UI needs.
It sounds like your perspective is that of a programmer that wants little to do with handling the UI and I can fully understand that mindset.
Which makes even more sense to have a UI specialist in jQuery or the latter to implement the best solutions for the frontend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232</id>
	<title>JQuery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263230820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked into JQuery recently for a web project, and while it is really, really cool, it's pretty heavy if all you want is (say) a Calendar popup. I think JQuery is really useful if you are going to basically do a desktop-style application using Javascript, like a spreadsheet or other major application. If all you want is a few controls for standard web forms, JQuery is overkill and too slow to download. There are better individual choices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked into JQuery recently for a web project , and while it is really , really cool , it 's pretty heavy if all you want is ( say ) a Calendar popup .
I think JQuery is really useful if you are going to basically do a desktop-style application using Javascript , like a spreadsheet or other major application .
If all you want is a few controls for standard web forms , JQuery is overkill and too slow to download .
There are better individual choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked into JQuery recently for a web project, and while it is really, really cool, it's pretty heavy if all you want is (say) a Calendar popup.
I think JQuery is really useful if you are going to basically do a desktop-style application using Javascript, like a spreadsheet or other major application.
If all you want is a few controls for standard web forms, JQuery is overkill and too slow to download.
There are better individual choices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724686</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tosh. Javascript, like Self, just doesn't use inheritance. You can fundamentally create generic or base objects, including giving them object-oriented methods which can access an implicit 'this' for self-reference, and then instances of those using the 'new' keyword.</p><p>These objects are defined without inheritance, instead using a constructor that sets the object's 'prototype': a live instance of an object that has all of the fundamental properties of the newly defined object, which can be overridden by the instance. Furthermore, those prototype objects can themselves be the product of constructors, and have their own prototypes, all the way down to Object/Array. This is simply implicit rather than explicit inheritance.</p><p>See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based\_programming</p><p>It's outdated nonsense to put prototype-based languages in the old-fashioned 'object-based' category that was contrived around limited languages like Visual Basic; Javascript and Self both clearly meet the fundamental requirements of object-oriented programming, and if they don't then it is the definition that needs to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tosh .
Javascript , like Self , just does n't use inheritance .
You can fundamentally create generic or base objects , including giving them object-oriented methods which can access an implicit 'this ' for self-reference , and then instances of those using the 'new ' keyword.These objects are defined without inheritance , instead using a constructor that sets the object 's 'prototype ' : a live instance of an object that has all of the fundamental properties of the newly defined object , which can be overridden by the instance .
Furthermore , those prototype objects can themselves be the product of constructors , and have their own prototypes , all the way down to Object/Array .
This is simply implicit rather than explicit inheritance.See : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based \ _programmingIt 's outdated nonsense to put prototype-based languages in the old-fashioned 'object-based ' category that was contrived around limited languages like Visual Basic ; Javascript and Self both clearly meet the fundamental requirements of object-oriented programming , and if they do n't then it is the definition that needs to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tosh.
Javascript, like Self, just doesn't use inheritance.
You can fundamentally create generic or base objects, including giving them object-oriented methods which can access an implicit 'this' for self-reference, and then instances of those using the 'new' keyword.These objects are defined without inheritance, instead using a constructor that sets the object's 'prototype': a live instance of an object that has all of the fundamental properties of the newly defined object, which can be overridden by the instance.
Furthermore, those prototype objects can themselves be the product of constructors, and have their own prototypes, all the way down to Object/Array.
This is simply implicit rather than explicit inheritance.See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based\_programmingIt's outdated nonsense to put prototype-based languages in the old-fashioned 'object-based' category that was contrived around limited languages like Visual Basic; Javascript and Self both clearly meet the fundamental requirements of object-oriented programming, and if they don't then it is the definition that needs to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724634</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because you don't make classes and instances of the classes, you just use object.property notation, Javascript is NOT object-oriented. It is <b>object-based</b>.</p></div><p>Just because JS doesn't <i>call</i> them "classes", doesn't mean they're not. You do define classes, and you do create instances of those classes. You can even use inheritance. It's not the nicest OO language out there, but it is OO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't make classes and instances of the classes , you just use object.property notation , Javascript is NOT object-oriented .
It is object-based.Just because JS does n't call them " classes " , does n't mean they 're not .
You do define classes , and you do create instances of those classes .
You can even use inheritance .
It 's not the nicest OO language out there , but it is OO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't make classes and instances of the classes, you just use object.property notation, Javascript is NOT object-oriented.
It is object-based.Just because JS doesn't call them "classes", doesn't mean they're not.
You do define classes, and you do create instances of those classes.
You can even use inheritance.
It's not the nicest OO language out there, but it is OO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725356</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263235260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript):</p><p>"JavaScript is an object-oriented scripting language used to enable programmatic access to objects within both the client application and other applications."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript ) : " JavaScript is an object-oriented scripting language used to enable programmatic access to objects within both the client application and other applications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript):"JavaScript is an object-oriented scripting language used to enable programmatic access to objects within both the client application and other applications.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724150</id>
	<title>HTML forms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263230340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Client side form handling is the browsers job.</p><p>Roll on <a href="http://www.diveintohtml5.org/detect.html#input-types" title="diveintohtml5.org" rel="nofollow">HTML 5</a> [diveintohtml5.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Client side form handling is the browsers job.Roll on HTML 5 [ diveintohtml5.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Client side form handling is the browsers job.Roll on HTML 5 [diveintohtml5.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724600</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>Stooshie</author>
	<datestamp>1263232500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anonymous functions. Eww!<br>
<br>
Don't, just don't!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous functions .
Eww ! Do n't , just do n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous functions.
Eww!

Don't, just don't!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344</id>
	<title>JQuery vs. MooTools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am unable to find comparisons of JQuery and MooTools.</p><p>If anyone has experience with both frameworks, could you please try to summarize the big differences and say which one you prefer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am unable to find comparisons of JQuery and MooTools.If anyone has experience with both frameworks , could you please try to summarize the big differences and say which one you prefer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am unable to find comparisons of JQuery and MooTools.If anyone has experience with both frameworks, could you please try to summarize the big differences and say which one you prefer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</id>
	<title>What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After years of doing UI development using Motif, then MFC and finally Swing and WinForms, I've ended up doing some web UI development for the past few years, mainly for business apps. It's simple enough to do, but I spend far too much of my time thinking "What the fuck?!?!" when using libraries like jQuery or YUI.</p><p>It's pretty bad that UI programming using C, C++, Java and even VB.NET was more enjoyable and productive than using JavaScript and jQuery.</p><p>With web UIs, we end up spending a whole lot of time getting around browser-specific problems, and many times it's just really awkward to bend our UI to the HTML or AJAX model. Often times, things that would have been really quick to do with Motif or even MFC ended up taking much longer to develop using HTML, JavaScript and jQuery.</p><p>And the UIs don't even look that good, too. We thankfully have some pretty good graphics designers working for us, and our web apps don't look bad, but they also don't look or feel as robust as native (or even pseudo-native like Swing) apps. Some of our users tell us that they found the old Motif apps easier to work with.</p><p>I really don't like the direction the craft is heading. We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms, but then web development took over and it feels like we've made a serious regression. So I'm thinking about moving away from UI design and development, after 20+ years. There are other areas where they're going in the right direction. Unless I can find myself a job using Qt somewhere. That's the only toolkit that seems to be making sensible innovation these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After years of doing UI development using Motif , then MFC and finally Swing and WinForms , I 've ended up doing some web UI development for the past few years , mainly for business apps .
It 's simple enough to do , but I spend far too much of my time thinking " What the fuck ? ! ? !
" when using libraries like jQuery or YUI.It 's pretty bad that UI programming using C , C + + , Java and even VB.NET was more enjoyable and productive than using JavaScript and jQuery.With web UIs , we end up spending a whole lot of time getting around browser-specific problems , and many times it 's just really awkward to bend our UI to the HTML or AJAX model .
Often times , things that would have been really quick to do with Motif or even MFC ended up taking much longer to develop using HTML , JavaScript and jQuery.And the UIs do n't even look that good , too .
We thankfully have some pretty good graphics designers working for us , and our web apps do n't look bad , but they also do n't look or feel as robust as native ( or even pseudo-native like Swing ) apps .
Some of our users tell us that they found the old Motif apps easier to work with.I really do n't like the direction the craft is heading .
We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms , but then web development took over and it feels like we 've made a serious regression .
So I 'm thinking about moving away from UI design and development , after 20 + years .
There are other areas where they 're going in the right direction .
Unless I can find myself a job using Qt somewhere .
That 's the only toolkit that seems to be making sensible innovation these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After years of doing UI development using Motif, then MFC and finally Swing and WinForms, I've ended up doing some web UI development for the past few years, mainly for business apps.
It's simple enough to do, but I spend far too much of my time thinking "What the fuck?!?!
" when using libraries like jQuery or YUI.It's pretty bad that UI programming using C, C++, Java and even VB.NET was more enjoyable and productive than using JavaScript and jQuery.With web UIs, we end up spending a whole lot of time getting around browser-specific problems, and many times it's just really awkward to bend our UI to the HTML or AJAX model.
Often times, things that would have been really quick to do with Motif or even MFC ended up taking much longer to develop using HTML, JavaScript and jQuery.And the UIs don't even look that good, too.
We thankfully have some pretty good graphics designers working for us, and our web apps don't look bad, but they also don't look or feel as robust as native (or even pseudo-native like Swing) apps.
Some of our users tell us that they found the old Motif apps easier to work with.I really don't like the direction the craft is heading.
We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms, but then web development took over and it feels like we've made a serious regression.
So I'm thinking about moving away from UI design and development, after 20+ years.
There are other areas where they're going in the right direction.
Unless I can find myself a job using Qt somewhere.
That's the only toolkit that seems to be making sensible innovation these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724628</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong again. JavaScript is an object-oriented, <b>prototype-based</b> (instead of class-based) language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong again .
JavaScript is an object-oriented , prototype-based ( instead of class-based ) language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong again.
JavaScript is an object-oriented, prototype-based (instead of class-based) language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</id>
	<title>object-oriented?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1263231300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you don't make classes and instances of the classes, you just use object.property notation, Javascript is NOT object-oriented. It is <b>object-based</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't make classes and instances of the classes , you just use object.property notation , Javascript is NOT object-oriented .
It is object-based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't make classes and instances of the classes, you just use object.property notation, Javascript is NOT object-oriented.
It is object-based.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724554</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>rob\_osx</author>
	<datestamp>1263232260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The name "functional programming" implies the use of functions, yet I've seen too much "functional programming" that is just lines and lines of indented code.

Here is an idea: Actually create new functions! Yes, these innovative routines can actually make the code readable and encourage code reuse!

Try to make each function do one task, and code will be readable, reusable, and will not suffer from over indention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The name " functional programming " implies the use of functions , yet I 've seen too much " functional programming " that is just lines and lines of indented code .
Here is an idea : Actually create new functions !
Yes , these innovative routines can actually make the code readable and encourage code reuse !
Try to make each function do one task , and code will be readable , reusable , and will not suffer from over indention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name "functional programming" implies the use of functions, yet I've seen too much "functional programming" that is just lines and lines of indented code.
Here is an idea: Actually create new functions!
Yes, these innovative routines can actually make the code readable and encourage code reuse!
Try to make each function do one task, and code will be readable, reusable, and will not suffer from over indention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</id>
	<title>Functional programming</title>
	<author>Camel Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1263230760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been learning jquery lately. I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm. I really hate the way it creates highly indented code. At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of )}: characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been learning jquery lately .
I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm .
I really hate the way it creates highly indented code .
At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of ) } : characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been learning jquery lately.
I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm.
I really hate the way it creates highly indented code.
At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of )}: characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725948</id>
	<title>Re:We don't use JavaScript here we use JQuery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263237960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you some kind of fucking retard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you some kind of fucking retard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you some kind of fucking retard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30737632</id>
	<title>Web 'developers' GET OUT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is this kind of shit doing on Slashdot? People who use toy languages like CSS and JQuery are not 'programmers' or 'developers', they're simpletons who aren't intelligent enough to program in REAL languages like C, Assembler and BASH scripts. As such they don't belong on this site, and nor do their Fisher-Price 'tools'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is this kind of shit doing on Slashdot ?
People who use toy languages like CSS and JQuery are not 'programmers ' or 'developers ' , they 're simpletons who are n't intelligent enough to program in REAL languages like C , Assembler and BASH scripts .
As such they do n't belong on this site , and nor do their Fisher-Price 'tools' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is this kind of shit doing on Slashdot?
People who use toy languages like CSS and JQuery are not 'programmers' or 'developers', they're simpletons who aren't intelligent enough to program in REAL languages like C, Assembler and BASH scripts.
As such they don't belong on this site, and nor do their Fisher-Price 'tools'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263230340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Key, then, to learning JQuery this book is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Key , then , to learning JQuery this book is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key, then, to learning JQuery this book is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724656</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1263232800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There might be some confusion here. You're referring to JQuery UI, which is not the same thing as the core JQuery language. 19kb is referring the gzipped, minified version of JQuery.  What you're seeing is probably the JQuery UI script (which is pretty large, even if you cut out the extra stuff).

<br> <br>
If you just want a simple calendar, I've found <a href="http://www.frequency-decoder.com/demo/date-picker-v4/" title="frequency-decoder.com">Unobtrusive Date Picker</a> [frequency-decoder.com] to be quite nice. It also doesn't take up a whole lot of space, AND is keyboard friendly! Oh, and it plays nice with JQuery (a big plus).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There might be some confusion here .
You 're referring to JQuery UI , which is not the same thing as the core JQuery language .
19kb is referring the gzipped , minified version of JQuery .
What you 're seeing is probably the JQuery UI script ( which is pretty large , even if you cut out the extra stuff ) .
If you just want a simple calendar , I 've found Unobtrusive Date Picker [ frequency-decoder.com ] to be quite nice .
It also does n't take up a whole lot of space , AND is keyboard friendly !
Oh , and it plays nice with JQuery ( a big plus ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There might be some confusion here.
You're referring to JQuery UI, which is not the same thing as the core JQuery language.
19kb is referring the gzipped, minified version of JQuery.
What you're seeing is probably the JQuery UI script (which is pretty large, even if you cut out the extra stuff).
If you just want a simple calendar, I've found Unobtrusive Date Picker [frequency-decoder.com] to be quite nice.
It also doesn't take up a whole lot of space, AND is keyboard friendly!
Oh, and it plays nice with JQuery (a big plus).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725318</id>
	<title>Re:What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>rycamor</author>
	<datestamp>1263235140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't like the direction the craft is heading. We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms, but then web development took over and it feels like we've made a serious regression. </p></div><p>HTML was never intended to be an application language, just a document presentation one. And rather than develop an additional language to embed real application elements, we've spent the past 10 years trying to turn a hammer into a screwdriver.</p><p>Mozilla tried to present a workable solution in the form of <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL" title="mozilla.org">XUL</a> [mozilla.org], which actually gives web developers a real GUI toolkit to work with. The world pretty much ignored or misused it, sadly. (Although I have to admit early XUL implementation was pretty buggy and limited). At present, XUL is mainly used to create Firefox extensions, but even there we see a movement away from that to HTML.</p><p>Be that as it may, you have to admit that there are things web apps deliver that the traditional client-side program couldn't. Will we ever see a good marriage of the two? I suppose it's possible, but for the near future I foresee more and more of this 'papering over'; layering frameworks on top of suboptimal core technology in order for developers to at least achieve some sanity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't like the direction the craft is heading .
We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms , but then web development took over and it feels like we 've made a serious regression .
HTML was never intended to be an application language , just a document presentation one .
And rather than develop an additional language to embed real application elements , we 've spent the past 10 years trying to turn a hammer into a screwdriver.Mozilla tried to present a workable solution in the form of XUL [ mozilla.org ] , which actually gives web developers a real GUI toolkit to work with .
The world pretty much ignored or misused it , sadly .
( Although I have to admit early XUL implementation was pretty buggy and limited ) .
At present , XUL is mainly used to create Firefox extensions , but even there we see a movement away from that to HTML.Be that as it may , you have to admit that there are things web apps deliver that the traditional client-side program could n't .
Will we ever see a good marriage of the two ?
I suppose it 's possible , but for the near future I foresee more and more of this 'papering over ' ; layering frameworks on top of suboptimal core technology in order for developers to at least achieve some sanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't like the direction the craft is heading.
We were making good progress up until Swing and WinForms, but then web development took over and it feels like we've made a serious regression.
HTML was never intended to be an application language, just a document presentation one.
And rather than develop an additional language to embed real application elements, we've spent the past 10 years trying to turn a hammer into a screwdriver.Mozilla tried to present a workable solution in the form of XUL [mozilla.org], which actually gives web developers a real GUI toolkit to work with.
The world pretty much ignored or misused it, sadly.
(Although I have to admit early XUL implementation was pretty buggy and limited).
At present, XUL is mainly used to create Firefox extensions, but even there we see a movement away from that to HTML.Be that as it may, you have to admit that there are things web apps deliver that the traditional client-side program couldn't.
Will we ever see a good marriage of the two?
I suppose it's possible, but for the near future I foresee more and more of this 'papering over'; layering frameworks on top of suboptimal core technology in order for developers to at least achieve some sanity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725354</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery</title>
	<author>clampolo</author>
	<datestamp>1263235260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, JQuery has some nice ui stuff in one of its additional libraries.  But the primary purpose of JQuery is for the AJAX support.  Using it, you don't need to sit and worry about browser compatibility.  It's also a lot easier to find and manipulate DOM objects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , JQuery has some nice ui stuff in one of its additional libraries .
But the primary purpose of JQuery is for the AJAX support .
Using it , you do n't need to sit and worry about browser compatibility .
It 's also a lot easier to find and manipulate DOM objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, JQuery has some nice ui stuff in one of its additional libraries.
But the primary purpose of JQuery is for the AJAX support.
Using it, you don't need to sit and worry about browser compatibility.
It's also a lot easier to find and manipulate DOM objects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725078</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery vs. MooTools</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1263234240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have any recent experience with MooTools, but when I was at a jQuery/MooTools crossroads about a year and a half ago, I chose jQuery for two reasons:</p><ul><li>JS written using jQuery was more concise and easier to read/write</li><li>jQuery's documentation was better (at the time, I seem to remember large chunks of MooTools documentation missing; possibly because they'd just released a new version or something, but still bad)</li></ul><p>And that's about it. jQuery has given me no reason to look elsewhere; it's still concise and easy-to-use, it's fairly fast, it's compatible with as many browsers as I'm willing to target for CSS, and there's a million and one plugins so often the only JS I need to write is that to enable a plugin.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any recent experience with MooTools , but when I was at a jQuery/MooTools crossroads about a year and a half ago , I chose jQuery for two reasons : JS written using jQuery was more concise and easier to read/writejQuery 's documentation was better ( at the time , I seem to remember large chunks of MooTools documentation missing ; possibly because they 'd just released a new version or something , but still bad ) And that 's about it .
jQuery has given me no reason to look elsewhere ; it 's still concise and easy-to-use , it 's fairly fast , it 's compatible with as many browsers as I 'm willing to target for CSS , and there 's a million and one plugins so often the only JS I need to write is that to enable a plugin .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any recent experience with MooTools, but when I was at a jQuery/MooTools crossroads about a year and a half ago, I chose jQuery for two reasons:JS written using jQuery was more concise and easier to read/writejQuery's documentation was better (at the time, I seem to remember large chunks of MooTools documentation missing; possibly because they'd just released a new version or something, but still bad)And that's about it.
jQuery has given me no reason to look elsewhere; it's still concise and easy-to-use, it's fairly fast, it's compatible with as many browsers as I'm willing to target for CSS, and there's a million and one plugins so often the only JS I need to write is that to enable a plugin.
      --- Mr. DOS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725368</id>
	<title>Re:Ghastly cover</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263235320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, PizzaAnalogyGuy is your virtual, then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , PizzaAnalogyGuy is your virtual , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, PizzaAnalogyGuy is your virtual, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30734704</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>TarMil</author>
	<datestamp>1263292260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In languages as verbose as JavaScript, indeed, too many anonymous functions are evil. But when it's more elegantly made as in Haskell or ML-based languages, use them again and again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In languages as verbose as JavaScript , indeed , too many anonymous functions are evil .
But when it 's more elegantly made as in Haskell or ML-based languages , use them again and again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In languages as verbose as JavaScript, indeed, too many anonymous functions are evil.
But when it's more elegantly made as in Haskell or ML-based languages, use them again and again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725888</id>
	<title>Re:What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263237540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the DOM sucks ass. Libraries like Prototype and JQuery can make the DOM suck slightly less ass, but unfortunately you're still getting some ass-suckage leaking though.</p><p>Believe me, if you were doing GUI programming in C++ or C# and had to go through DOM it would suck just as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the DOM sucks ass .
Libraries like Prototype and JQuery can make the DOM suck slightly less ass , but unfortunately you 're still getting some ass-suckage leaking though.Believe me , if you were doing GUI programming in C + + or C # and had to go through DOM it would suck just as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the DOM sucks ass.
Libraries like Prototype and JQuery can make the DOM suck slightly less ass, but unfortunately you're still getting some ass-suckage leaking though.Believe me, if you were doing GUI programming in C++ or C# and had to go through DOM it would suck just as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724946</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263233760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's some "faddism" to the recent functional programming (FP) push. <b>FP has a place, but that place is not necessarily everywhere</b>. We learned the same lesson with OOP: some parts of our software fit it well and some don't. Use the right tool for the job. Some if it is also subjective. We all think different.</p><p>There will be some zealots who will say, "Your <i>entire</i> program must use X-oriented programming or you are a lame dumb Luddite who doesn't get it. Puppies will die of cancer if you don't use only X". But these extremists will tend to fall by the wayside and people will end up using different paradigms where they work best as experience teaches when to use what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's some " faddism " to the recent functional programming ( FP ) push .
FP has a place , but that place is not necessarily everywhere .
We learned the same lesson with OOP : some parts of our software fit it well and some do n't .
Use the right tool for the job .
Some if it is also subjective .
We all think different.There will be some zealots who will say , " Your entire program must use X-oriented programming or you are a lame dumb Luddite who does n't get it .
Puppies will die of cancer if you do n't use only X " .
But these extremists will tend to fall by the wayside and people will end up using different paradigms where they work best as experience teaches when to use what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's some "faddism" to the recent functional programming (FP) push.
FP has a place, but that place is not necessarily everywhere.
We learned the same lesson with OOP: some parts of our software fit it well and some don't.
Use the right tool for the job.
Some if it is also subjective.
We all think different.There will be some zealots who will say, "Your entire program must use X-oriented programming or you are a lame dumb Luddite who doesn't get it.
Puppies will die of cancer if you don't use only X".
But these extremists will tend to fall by the wayside and people will end up using different paradigms where they work best as experience teaches when to use what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724332</id>
	<title>For cross browser compat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once IE10?...11 comes out and all browsers have a standard JavaScript implementation all of these JavaScript frameworks will be borderline obsolete.</p><p>obj.addEventListener will be obj.addEventListener NOT<br>if(obj.attachEvent){...}else if(obj.addEventListener){...}else{...}</p><p>They will still have the convenience functions for Ajax, DragNDrop, and XPath, but once cross-browser annoyances are off the table the convenience factor becomes just another layer of abstraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once IE10 ? ...11 comes out and all browsers have a standard JavaScript implementation all of these JavaScript frameworks will be borderline obsolete.obj.addEventListener will be obj.addEventListener NOTif ( obj.attachEvent ) { ... } else if ( obj.addEventListener ) { ... } else { ... } They will still have the convenience functions for Ajax , DragNDrop , and XPath , but once cross-browser annoyances are off the table the convenience factor becomes just another layer of abstraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once IE10?...11 comes out and all browsers have a standard JavaScript implementation all of these JavaScript frameworks will be borderline obsolete.obj.addEventListener will be obj.addEventListener NOTif(obj.attachEvent){...}else if(obj.addEventListener){...}else{...}They will still have the convenience functions for Ajax, DragNDrop, and XPath, but once cross-browser annoyances are off the table the convenience factor becomes just another layer of abstraction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724700</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1263232980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No language is object-oriented.</p><p>Some programs are.</p><p>You can write an object-oriented program in practically any language.</p><p>Some kind of runtime code dispatching tool (like defgeneric, function pointers, or first-class function objects) is helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No language is object-oriented.Some programs are.You can write an object-oriented program in practically any language.Some kind of runtime code dispatching tool ( like defgeneric , function pointers , or first-class function objects ) is helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No language is object-oriented.Some programs are.You can write an object-oriented program in practically any language.Some kind of runtime code dispatching tool (like defgeneric, function pointers, or first-class function objects) is helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724504</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>Fahrvergnuugen</author>
	<datestamp>1263232080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can write classes (which contain properties and methods) and then instance new objects from those classes with JavaScript. How is that not Object Oriented?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can write classes ( which contain properties and methods ) and then instance new objects from those classes with JavaScript .
How is that not Object Oriented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can write classes (which contain properties and methods) and then instance new objects from those classes with JavaScript.
How is that not Object Oriented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726166</id>
	<title>Excellent Timing</title>
	<author>Supergibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263239100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blog.jquery.com/2009/12/18/jquery-14-alpha-2-released/" title="jquery.com" rel="nofollow">JQuery 1.4 alpha 2</a> [jquery.com] just came out and the final version is scheduled for Thursday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JQuery 1.4 alpha 2 [ jquery.com ] just came out and the final version is scheduled for Thursday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JQuery 1.4 alpha 2 [jquery.com] just came out and the final version is scheduled for Thursday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724644</id>
	<title>Re:object-oriented?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263232740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>JavaScript is object oriented.  In fact, it is a pure object-oriented language: everything is an object (even functions).  It is not, however, a class-based language.  Or are you going to claim that Self isn't an object oriented language either?</htmltext>
<tokenext>JavaScript is object oriented .
In fact , it is a pure object-oriented language : everything is an object ( even functions ) .
It is not , however , a class-based language .
Or are you going to claim that Self is n't an object oriented language either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JavaScript is object oriented.
In fact, it is a pure object-oriented language: everything is an object (even functions).
It is not, however, a class-based language.
Or are you going to claim that Self isn't an object oriented language either?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724328</id>
	<title>Reading worth</title>
	<author>Rikiji7</author>
	<datestamp>1263231360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks to jQuery javascript just makes sense. You can refer to and interact with things around the pages so easily that you will laugh thinking about the old days, when scripters were getting mad to write cross-browser js...
Book is good and easy to read-through in a single day for an already experienced jscripter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to jQuery javascript just makes sense .
You can refer to and interact with things around the pages so easily that you will laugh thinking about the old days , when scripters were getting mad to write cross-browser js.. . Book is good and easy to read-through in a single day for an already experienced jscripter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to jQuery javascript just makes sense.
You can refer to and interact with things around the pages so easily that you will laugh thinking about the old days, when scripters were getting mad to write cross-browser js...
Book is good and easy to read-through in a single day for an already experienced jscripter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724620</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>CaptSaltyJack</author>
	<datestamp>1263232620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dudes. Then get a real editor that handles auto-indentation. "Highly indented code" is a GOOD thing, I've worked with enough developers who slack on their indentation, and it makes the code a bitch to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dudes .
Then get a real editor that handles auto-indentation .
" Highly indented code " is a GOOD thing , I 've worked with enough developers who slack on their indentation , and it makes the code a bitch to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dudes.
Then get a real editor that handles auto-indentation.
"Highly indented code" is a GOOD thing, I've worked with enough developers who slack on their indentation, and it makes the code a bitch to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724386</id>
	<title>Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers are using Javascript because they have no choice.   Web development sucks, and Javascript is one of the reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers are using Javascript because they have no choice .
Web development sucks , and Javascript is one of the reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers are using Javascript because they have no choice.
Web development sucks, and Javascript is one of the reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725296</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263235080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have been learning jquery lately. I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm. I really hate the way it creates highly indented code. At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of )}: characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation.</p></div><p>It's the deficiency of (overly verbose for an FP language) JavaScript syntax, not FP itself. If you look at Ruby, for example, it specifically has some syntactic sugar to make it possible to write FP code that looks like "normal" control structures. E.g.:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>xs.each { |x|<br>
&nbsp; puts(x)<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>It's actually an invocation of method "each", passing it a single-argument block (closure) as an argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been learning jquery lately .
I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm .
I really hate the way it creates highly indented code .
At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of ) } : characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation.It 's the deficiency of ( overly verbose for an FP language ) JavaScript syntax , not FP itself .
If you look at Ruby , for example , it specifically has some syntactic sugar to make it possible to write FP code that looks like " normal " control structures .
E.g. : xs.each { | x |   puts ( x ) } It 's actually an invocation of method " each " , passing it a single-argument block ( closure ) as an argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been learning jquery lately.
I am still uncomfortable about the functional programming paradigm.
I really hate the way it creates highly indented code.
At the end of some complex operations with several anonymous functions as arguments you end up with scads of )}: characters and it is easy to get lost in the indentation.It's the deficiency of (overly verbose for an FP language) JavaScript syntax, not FP itself.
If you look at Ruby, for example, it specifically has some syntactic sugar to make it possible to write FP code that looks like "normal" control structures.
E.g.: xs.each { |x|
  puts(x)} It's actually an invocation of method "each", passing it a single-argument block (closure) as an argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724958</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery</title>
	<author>Reality Master 101</author>
	<datestamp>1263233820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really cool, but the packed version + CSS file = 54K... Ouch. But I'm pretty obsessive about keeping web pages light and fast loading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really cool , but the packed version + CSS file = 54K... Ouch. But I 'm pretty obsessive about keeping web pages light and fast loading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really cool, but the packed version + CSS file = 54K... Ouch. But I'm pretty obsessive about keeping web pages light and fast loading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725384</id>
	<title>We don't use JavaScript here we use JQuery</title>
	<author>SpoodyGoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263235380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't use JavaScript where I work we use JQuery instead it's a lot more intuitive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't use JavaScript where I work we use JQuery instead it 's a lot more intuitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't use JavaScript where I work we use JQuery instead it's a lot more intuitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724512</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263232140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't think that just using anonymous functions is functional programming. JavaScript is not a functional language.</p><p>Functional programming is far more than that. Referential transparency, for instance, is a significant feature that is totally absent from JavaScript. You can't even declare constants in real-world JavaScript yet. Even then, if you use the DOM or any existing JavaScript libraries, you're basically stuck maintaining and manipulating state (which just isn't done when using a functional language).</p><p>Most functional languages also offer strict, static typing, with type inference. This is something else that is completely contrary to how JavaScript works.</p><p>Don't let JavaScript's poor attempts to include functional techniques taint real functional programming languages like Haskell, SML and OCaml for you. JavaScript is to functional programming as somebody sticking a crowbar up your ass is to a comforting back massage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't think that just using anonymous functions is functional programming .
JavaScript is not a functional language.Functional programming is far more than that .
Referential transparency , for instance , is a significant feature that is totally absent from JavaScript .
You ca n't even declare constants in real-world JavaScript yet .
Even then , if you use the DOM or any existing JavaScript libraries , you 're basically stuck maintaining and manipulating state ( which just is n't done when using a functional language ) .Most functional languages also offer strict , static typing , with type inference .
This is something else that is completely contrary to how JavaScript works.Do n't let JavaScript 's poor attempts to include functional techniques taint real functional programming languages like Haskell , SML and OCaml for you .
JavaScript is to functional programming as somebody sticking a crowbar up your ass is to a comforting back massage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't think that just using anonymous functions is functional programming.
JavaScript is not a functional language.Functional programming is far more than that.
Referential transparency, for instance, is a significant feature that is totally absent from JavaScript.
You can't even declare constants in real-world JavaScript yet.
Even then, if you use the DOM or any existing JavaScript libraries, you're basically stuck maintaining and manipulating state (which just isn't done when using a functional language).Most functional languages also offer strict, static typing, with type inference.
This is something else that is completely contrary to how JavaScript works.Don't let JavaScript's poor attempts to include functional techniques taint real functional programming languages like Haskell, SML and OCaml for you.
JavaScript is to functional programming as somebody sticking a crowbar up your ass is to a comforting back massage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725016</id>
	<title>Re:Javascript</title>
	<author>CobaltBlueDW</author>
	<datestamp>1263234000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>HTML is a horrible way to depict graphical content, and wasn't made to.</p><p>JavaScript is a terrible language, but how do you fix a language which everyone has already created their own implementation for, and which no one person has any control over.</p><p>CSS is a mess built on top of a mess.</p><p>Rigging them all together is like trying to create Frankenstein with jellyfish and hair-pins.</p><p>Now if only we could get a object/vector-based graphics system hooked-up to a solid OO language, and give it a flashy name.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>--but seriously, a vector graphics driven web browser running a good scripting language, or at least a popular scripting language like ActionScript3, Python, Ruby or c#, could create some brilliant results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.HTML is a horrible way to depict graphical content , and was n't made to.JavaScript is a terrible language , but how do you fix a language which everyone has already created their own implementation for , and which no one person has any control over.CSS is a mess built on top of a mess.Rigging them all together is like trying to create Frankenstein with jellyfish and hair-pins.Now if only we could get a object/vector-based graphics system hooked-up to a solid OO language , and give it a flashy name .
; ) --but seriously , a vector graphics driven web browser running a good scripting language , or at least a popular scripting language like ActionScript3 , Python , Ruby or c # , could create some brilliant results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.HTML is a horrible way to depict graphical content, and wasn't made to.JavaScript is a terrible language, but how do you fix a language which everyone has already created their own implementation for, and which no one person has any control over.CSS is a mess built on top of a mess.Rigging them all together is like trying to create Frankenstein with jellyfish and hair-pins.Now if only we could get a object/vector-based graphics system hooked-up to a solid OO language, and give it a flashy name.
;)--but seriously, a vector graphics driven web browser running a good scripting language, or at least a popular scripting language like ActionScript3, Python, Ruby or c#, could create some brilliant results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30734566</id>
	<title>Dojo?</title>
	<author>gunners007</author>
	<datestamp>1263290160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where does Dojo stand vis-a-vis jQuery?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does Dojo stand vis-a-vis jQuery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does Dojo stand vis-a-vis jQuery?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724676</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery vs. MooTools</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1263232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like jQuery more because... um... well, actually, I just like it more.  Feels easier to use.  MooTools has a steeper learning curve, and I can do what I want to in jQuery without that learning curve.
</p><p>Incidentally, although it is highly dependent on the browswer running the test, jQuery often feels faster.  But <a href="http://dev.jquery.com/~john/slick/" title="jquery.com">run the tests</a> [jquery.com] yourself.  And while speed is one thing, accuracy is another, and it all depends on what kind of work you do.
</p><p>It gets really irritating, though, when I see a web site using both MooTools and jQuery on the same page, just because the designer/developer liked a particular plug-in for that page.  I'm sure the client never notices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like jQuery more because... um... well , actually , I just like it more .
Feels easier to use .
MooTools has a steeper learning curve , and I can do what I want to in jQuery without that learning curve .
Incidentally , although it is highly dependent on the browswer running the test , jQuery often feels faster .
But run the tests [ jquery.com ] yourself .
And while speed is one thing , accuracy is another , and it all depends on what kind of work you do .
It gets really irritating , though , when I see a web site using both MooTools and jQuery on the same page , just because the designer/developer liked a particular plug-in for that page .
I 'm sure the client never notices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like jQuery more because... um... well, actually, I just like it more.
Feels easier to use.
MooTools has a steeper learning curve, and I can do what I want to in jQuery without that learning curve.
Incidentally, although it is highly dependent on the browswer running the test, jQuery often feels faster.
But run the tests [jquery.com] yourself.
And while speed is one thing, accuracy is another, and it all depends on what kind of work you do.
It gets really irritating, though, when I see a web site using both MooTools and jQuery on the same page, just because the designer/developer liked a particular plug-in for that page.
I'm sure the client never notices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724398</id>
	<title>Re:What has UI development become?</title>
	<author>umghhh</author>
	<datestamp>1263231720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do not have to put much effort in convincing me that JS is source of all evil including Osama and rectal cancer but my observation over years brought me is understanding that the real pain that starts when somebody wants to use different language/set of tools over legacy code is caused not that much by the fact the legacy is coded in X but that legacy is coded badly in X. X is sometimes relevant but usually not significantly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not have to put much effort in convincing me that JS is source of all evil including Osama and rectal cancer but my observation over years brought me is understanding that the real pain that starts when somebody wants to use different language/set of tools over legacy code is caused not that much by the fact the legacy is coded in X but that legacy is coded badly in X. X is sometimes relevant but usually not significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not have to put much effort in convincing me that JS is source of all evil including Osama and rectal cancer but my observation over years brought me is understanding that the real pain that starts when somebody wants to use different language/set of tools over legacy code is caused not that much by the fact the legacy is coded in X but that legacy is coded badly in X. X is sometimes relevant but usually not significantly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30733090</id>
	<title>JQuery is for undisciplined programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>O'Reilly 2nd and 3rd editions of JavaScript explained everything you'd want to know about JavaScript but, like any other book on a language, didn't teach programming.  JQuery might be convenient but it isn't likely to add value to properly written code.  If you knew what you were doing with JavaScript in 1999 and maintained your library from that point forward, the only thing JQuery would add is the overhead of getting to know someone else's code.</p><p>Maybe this book is different; maybe it really is documentation. That is, information for programmers without the self-righteous crap or the marketing nonsense inherent to the Perl books from that same publisher.  The shoulders that need repair after all the self-praise must give sports medicine something to write about.  (Sigh). If only David Flanagan would write a Perl book.</p><p>Comparisons of JavaScript code with JQuery to code without JQuery -- and that omit consideration of the quality (or lack thereof) of the plain-old JavaScript -- shouldn't give JQuery any credibility.  But they do, it seems.  How ex- paste-up editors write code -- code from any programmer with little engineering prowess -- doesn't seem to be a basis for comparing any tool (sugar).</p><p>As David Flanagan wrote on his blog: "Good algorithms are better than clever code".<br><a href="http://www.davidflanagan.com/2009/08/good-algorithms.html" title="davidflanagan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.davidflanagan.com/2009/08/good-algorithms.html</a> [davidflanagan.com]</p><p>As long as the folks I work with insist on using it I'll be stuck with it -- since I didn't maintain my libraries after 2003.  Good thing for JQuery that the best of the programmers I work with thinks highly of it.  Maybe its just me -- he likes the Perl texts, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>O'Reilly 2nd and 3rd editions of JavaScript explained everything you 'd want to know about JavaScript but , like any other book on a language , did n't teach programming .
JQuery might be convenient but it is n't likely to add value to properly written code .
If you knew what you were doing with JavaScript in 1999 and maintained your library from that point forward , the only thing JQuery would add is the overhead of getting to know someone else 's code.Maybe this book is different ; maybe it really is documentation .
That is , information for programmers without the self-righteous crap or the marketing nonsense inherent to the Perl books from that same publisher .
The shoulders that need repair after all the self-praise must give sports medicine something to write about .
( Sigh ) . If only David Flanagan would write a Perl book.Comparisons of JavaScript code with JQuery to code without JQuery -- and that omit consideration of the quality ( or lack thereof ) of the plain-old JavaScript -- should n't give JQuery any credibility .
But they do , it seems .
How ex- paste-up editors write code -- code from any programmer with little engineering prowess -- does n't seem to be a basis for comparing any tool ( sugar ) .As David Flanagan wrote on his blog : " Good algorithms are better than clever code " .http : //www.davidflanagan.com/2009/08/good-algorithms.html [ davidflanagan.com ] As long as the folks I work with insist on using it I 'll be stuck with it -- since I did n't maintain my libraries after 2003 .
Good thing for JQuery that the best of the programmers I work with thinks highly of it .
Maybe its just me -- he likes the Perl texts , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O'Reilly 2nd and 3rd editions of JavaScript explained everything you'd want to know about JavaScript but, like any other book on a language, didn't teach programming.
JQuery might be convenient but it isn't likely to add value to properly written code.
If you knew what you were doing with JavaScript in 1999 and maintained your library from that point forward, the only thing JQuery would add is the overhead of getting to know someone else's code.Maybe this book is different; maybe it really is documentation.
That is, information for programmers without the self-righteous crap or the marketing nonsense inherent to the Perl books from that same publisher.
The shoulders that need repair after all the self-praise must give sports medicine something to write about.
(Sigh). If only David Flanagan would write a Perl book.Comparisons of JavaScript code with JQuery to code without JQuery -- and that omit consideration of the quality (or lack thereof) of the plain-old JavaScript -- shouldn't give JQuery any credibility.
But they do, it seems.
How ex- paste-up editors write code -- code from any programmer with little engineering prowess -- doesn't seem to be a basis for comparing any tool (sugar).As David Flanagan wrote on his blog: "Good algorithms are better than clever code".http://www.davidflanagan.com/2009/08/good-algorithms.html [davidflanagan.com]As long as the folks I work with insist on using it I'll be stuck with it -- since I didn't maintain my libraries after 2003.
Good thing for JQuery that the best of the programmers I work with thinks highly of it.
Maybe its just me -- he likes the Perl texts, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726014</id>
	<title>Re:JQuery</title>
	<author>GigaHurtsMyRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1263238320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is jQuery 'clearly the frontrunner'?... Has this reviewer never heard of ExtJS?
</p><p>It bothers me how overcomplicated everyone makes the use of asynchronous connectivity on a web page, and how wasteful it is to use XML to communicate with yourself.
</p><p>None of these frameworks are easy to use.. you're better off learning a few key pieces and using a minimalist/obscure approach and remove XML from the AJAX equation.  The filesize of some of these frameworks are 50\% wasted on encoding/decoding XML when plain delimited text would prove sufficient.  I've re-written them from scratch and proven it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is jQuery 'clearly the frontrunner ' ? .. .
Has this reviewer never heard of ExtJS ?
It bothers me how overcomplicated everyone makes the use of asynchronous connectivity on a web page , and how wasteful it is to use XML to communicate with yourself .
None of these frameworks are easy to use.. you 're better off learning a few key pieces and using a minimalist/obscure approach and remove XML from the AJAX equation .
The filesize of some of these frameworks are 50 \ % wasted on encoding/decoding XML when plain delimited text would prove sufficient .
I 've re-written them from scratch and proven it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is jQuery 'clearly the frontrunner'?...
Has this reviewer never heard of ExtJS?
It bothers me how overcomplicated everyone makes the use of asynchronous connectivity on a web page, and how wasteful it is to use XML to communicate with yourself.
None of these frameworks are easy to use.. you're better off learning a few key pieces and using a minimalist/obscure approach and remove XML from the AJAX equation.
The filesize of some of these frameworks are 50\% wasted on encoding/decoding XML when plain delimited text would prove sufficient.
I've re-written them from scratch and proven it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724650</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263232800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Key, then, to learning JQuery this book is.</p></div></blockquote><p>Dig new Yoda Series of books one must.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Key , then , to learning JQuery this book is.Dig new Yoda Series of books one must .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key, then, to learning JQuery this book is.Dig new Yoda Series of books one must.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725362</id>
	<title>Re:Functional programming</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263235260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also get annoyed with this style of programming. While I try to while things in more explicit form when using jQuery to make debugging easier for myself, pretty much all the examples on the web are written in this terse, yet not so readable form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also get annoyed with this style of programming .
While I try to while things in more explicit form when using jQuery to make debugging easier for myself , pretty much all the examples on the web are written in this terse , yet not so readable form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also get annoyed with this style of programming.
While I try to while things in more explicit form when using jQuery to make debugging easier for myself, pretty much all the examples on the web are written in this terse, yet not so readable form.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724594</id>
	<title>Ghastly cover</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263232440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say, that book cover reminds me of the day I had way too much pizza, and let's just say the pizza took upon itself to make a U-turn.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say , that book cover reminds me of the day I had way too much pizza , and let 's just say the pizza took upon itself to make a U-turn .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say, that book cover reminds me of the day I had way too much pizza, and let's just say the pizza took upon itself to make a U-turn.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30781556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30737632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30734704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1441233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30737632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30781556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30734704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30726014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1441233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30724676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1441233.30725078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
