Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
AJAX resources for beginners
rushi.wordpress.com — Title says it all... Additional useful resources in the comments to the article.
anonymonk- 1602 diggs
- digg it
- DevilsEnigma, on 10/12/2007, -37/+2oh look ma im on Digg.com!
- crass, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3Your mother must be ashamed of you.
- rahulgs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Here is another article that will get you started on AJAX,
Implementing simple AJAX interaction in your Web Application using XMLHttpRequest object:
http://www.javareference.com/jrexamples/viewexample.jsp?id=111- donda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here is another large list of Ajax tutorials,
http://121space.com/index.php?showtopic=1875 - logic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2pwned
- donda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here is another large list of Ajax tutorials,
- MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7" This is a pretty good tutorial which gives you the nitty gritty basics, talks about cross browser compatibility which is really important with XmlHTTPRequest object in IE (stupid MSFT :-p) "
Interesting that he calls Microsoft stupid, when they're the ones that first came up with, and implemented it.- corexian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11He's probably just frustrated that MSFT ignores standards so often.
- pigdart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In this case Microsoft created it, they wrote the standard. They where the only one using it for years. Then some other organization comes along years later and decides to change the way the interface should work, and what they are just supposed to change it from the default standard that it has been for years.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft will only use it through DirectX, which makes it proprietary.
Proprietary technology + WWW = stupid. - rufous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"what they are just supposed to change it from the default standard that it has been for years."
In this case: yes, absolutely, because Microsoft's initial implementation was unnecessarily wrapped as an ActiveX object, which will never be supported by Firefox et al.. When the opportunity to revise a standard comes up, as it did with the XMLHttpRequest object, it should be seized.
- mctk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Title says it all... "
No, no it doesn't. If an article isn't worth more than a title, perhaps it's not worth posting? Ajax is a big subject. Give us some hints as to what we'll find. - goat4, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Reported as lame, ANOTHER AJAX article god damn
- cuppyCake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Gee, what with all the AJAX articles being dugg, people must be INTERESTED IN IT or something. Golly, imagine that.
- ttntyler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2also reported as lame
- dime, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2
lameo.
can digg have non-beginner resources? inquiring minds want to know.
next up...
tables vs css: essentials in web design - veritech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5w3 schools have one, and i will swear by that site as, the best for learing HTML, CSS, Javascript. and everything else net wise, They also do ASP, JSP, .net, VBscript, SVG, RSS/XML the list goes on, i just wish they had C,
- crass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree, w3schools is an excellent resource. Everything I know about web design/programming was seeded by them, as early as 6th grade.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you want to know anything about C, you only need to start with this:
The C Programming Language (2nd Edition) (Paperback)
by Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie, Dennis M. Ritchie
You can get it on Amazon, and if that is too elementary, then why bother mentioning the need for a resource. At that point I would assume you could locate all of the advanced resources available. - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Absolutely. "The C Programming Language" is one of the best programming books ever written, period.
Honestly I don't know how much I like W3Schools. I think they are alright, but I think they are a bit basic. There "try it out" thing is really cool, but overall I don't think are that thorough.
But then again, they are free. :)
- microview, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.
Another blogger gets on digg. Just couldn't post the actual link instead Rushi?
I can almost taste the curry... :x - habenneas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4ENOUGH with the freakin' AJAX already! We get it! We know where to find it! One more AJAX story and you'll get Ruby RAILED right in the place it'd be least comfortable!
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ya know what's Lame? About 40 posts all saying LAME!!! - see, you could just mod up the first person that said lame since you agree with him, that was you can make your point seen. The comments system is fro discussing the story, not redundant assault.
Now, i don't care about the ajax posts, but im sure the people digging it do - get used to it, dont get so bent out of shape when you see something you don't need on the front page.- goat4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2 i dont get bent out of shape when i see one thing on the front page i dont need. i get bent out of shape when i see ten, and theyre all variations of something ive seen 20 times before.
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2there's also a handy "ok, this is lame" item in the drop-down menu for the articles posted... it seems people ignore this...
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When I see a headline that I'm not interested in, I don't click it. I don't Digg it. I don't comment upon it. I ignore it.
Does that mean I'm misunderstanding the whole "democratic news" idea? Am I supposed to be spamming every article that I'm not interested in and working as hard as I can to make sure that not only is Digg reflecting my interests, but that anyone who doesn't share my interests should leave?
- wolever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm also going to put in a shameless plug for my really simple XMLHttpRequest kit I put together here: http://wolever.net/~wolever/wax/
Check out example.php and simple.php to see just how easy it is to get going... - Trenton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Awesome! Now I can finally get my ajax grove on. Ajax will be something fun to play around with on a unused server. =)
I've been thinking about getting into ajax, but never had the time to actually look for resources on learning it. Great to know! - habenneas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ThinkBox: Poo to you with knobs on!
- supermikedigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No, no, no. Where on Earth are all the smart people going? This AJAX thing is just stupid. It's never going to be a great idea for these reasons:
1) There will always be browser-incompatibility. It's just going to be a fact of life. Who wants custom code per browser? I don't. It often breaks.
2) It relies too heavily on Javascript, and that's a stupid idea from the get-go. ECMAScript is the way to go.
3) Because it relies on Javascript, hackers can see your code and you'll have to build in all kinds of scenarios to block that. Can you constantly out-think all the hackers all the time? I think not.
4) Much of the special effects and designs we're giving web pages are being done with Javascript these days. Ever go to a snazzy website done up with Javascript circa 2000? Does it still work on the latest browser? Perhaps, and perhaps not. What I think is that CSS is a wonderful standard. Some but all of these special effects and designs should be improvements to the next round of CSS specifications. All it takes is participation in the W3C.
5) We all need to stand back here and look at what are the top 10 uses for AJAX that devs seem so hungry for. Can this be achieved in a future XHTML or CSS specification? Should we have another kind of web page object that's more powerful, such as a richtext editor? Submit it to the W3C.
You won't see me jumping on this loony wagon. This is just IT hype -- IT journalists with nothing to do, perhaps given a bunch of cash from Microsoft to hype it up.
For now, I'm sticking with minimal ECMAScript, roundtrips to the server, and more efficient programming so that even with roundtrips, I'm optimizing traffic. Want to optimize roundtrips? One way is to use an iframe or a popup window for collection of stuff, then return that data back to some other object on the main page. Another way is to have certain pages with fewer images on them in order to reduce traffic. There are many ways to optimize roundtrips to the server. Sure, if I could avoid them, I would, but not by jumping on something that has all these faults. Instead, I would recommend the powerful people in this field get with the W3C and do something more constructive, instead.- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is the difference between ECMAScript and Javascript? I thought that ECMAScript was just the official, standard name of javascript.
- logic11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Regarding point 3: The actual execution can be done via any scripting language (PHP, ASP, etc.) and the calls to those scripts are handled via javascript. That means that a hacker can see some of the php files you are including, although those can actually just be containers to includes if you are paranoid...
Can't really say anything bad about the rest of it, although I do tend to do a bunch of AJAX programming these days (it's cool and that means I can command more dollars for the same web dev work I always did, simply by including a few libraries that I download...)
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by