jeffman

If you create variables within a function, but don't use the var keyword, those variables will be globally visible. Example: function foo () { x = 5;}alert (x); // alerts "5" Usually this practice is discouraged because it is hard to keep track of globals created this way. The following is better: function foo () { var x = 5; return x;}alert (foo() ); // alerts "5"

Maybe I should have explained. The front end is HTML and AJAX. The back end is PHP. When you strip away all the safety features, error filtering, and a few other tweaks, the central function is -- wait for it -- eval.My goal wasn't to write a minimal PHP interpreter (cool, but not me) but to write a web-based PHP terminal. I wanted it to have access to all PHP features on my server, so it's no good as a W3Schools-type "try-it".OTOH, the way it speeds up workflow, I think it's a good learning tool. I built in ways to send get, post, cookie, and custom header data in addition to the code, so you can simulate just about everything. You can even look at the response headers.

I also need time for my Lindsay Lohan Fan Club page.

I'm actually working on a tool like that. You install it on your own system, so there are no limitations. I haven't released it yet because it lacks a few bells and whistles. But I've taken to using it all the time when I'm testing new code ideas, and also to solve problems that come up on this board. It's way faster than editing an actual document every time. Since I've been using it, my answers to PHP questions have gotten more thorough with a lot less work. Yay.

^^ Yeah. The code editors on the expensive guys have nice code completion, highlighting, and built-in FTP, as you said.

I like the banner/logo. I think I would prefer it higher up the page, without the big margin at the top. I would definitely like it better without the 2-tone-gray CSS border. You went to a lot of trouble to make the image look nice. Wrapping it in a 1994-table-style border is a real let-down.The way the background image repeats is distracting.The sketches take a long time to down load. Users will not like that. The biggest step you can take is to use your image editor to shrink them to the size at which they'll be displayed, which requires about 25% the number of Bytes. That alone is a huge savings. You can get away with a bit more jpg compression too with not much loss of quality. If you really, really, really want users to have access to the full-sized images, you could link to them or use a lightbox of some kind.

Welcome. To get the most out of the forum, don't just post questions and read the answers to those questions. Read every post on every topic you have some knowledge of. Follow it. Get a sense for who has good answers and whose answers are off the mark. Pay attention when the seniors debate the details. Try to answer when you can and learn from the moments when someone says, "Er, that's not right." If you can almost answer a post, write some code to experiment with. Learn something and share what you've learned. Remember that all browsers do not behave the same way.

Hi lp5.FYI, the best way to get help on this forum is to ask very specific questions and post code that you are working on. Sometimes people embarrassed to post code because they think it looks immature. This almost guarantees that they won't get the help they want. We expect to see code that is rough.

OOP is a worthwhile concept to discuss, if it is not already there. Meanwhile, look here.Regular expressions are not unique to PHP, so a discussion of them really does not belong in a PHP tutorial. There is some info in the JavaScript section, but an independent tutorial section addressing regex would be better.You might post both these remarks to the suggestions forum, which is, I think, the only forum the site admins ever visit on a regular basis. The other forums are mostly for users.

Add a new topic to this forum (scroll to top of document) if it's very general. We also have forums for HTML, JavaScript, CSS. The level of the question doesn't really matter. We have all kinds of members here.

About Firefox 4. I've been playing around with the new Web Console. As advertised, it's not Firebug. But it's more useful, I think, than the Error Console. A lot more information is available. And it still provides a JS line editor, which makes me very happy.

As a developer, look here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_4_for_developers

Agreed. Anyone who wants to be thought of as a serious developer should be able to write spot-on code in a plain text editor. That doesn't mean syntax highlighting and code completion are not tools to be taken seriously. They are. But you never know how much you REALLY know if you haven't tested yourself without the bells and whistles.

sansana, were you asking from a user's point of view, or a developers?

I think I missed the part where OP said he uses DW as a student. Now I guess that means it's available at school, and he doesn't personally own it? Yeah, go with notepad++ or something.

Sure, but if OP wants to master hand-coding, there's no reason to use a different text editor, especially when DW has built-in FTP and so many free one's don't.

Google it?Is there any reason you can't just use Dreamweaver's text editor and ignore the WYSIWYG editor?

Ssh.

Nice to meet you Dizzy. But for goodness' sake don't be telling people your real name. Next thing you know, we'll start calling Steve by his real name, and I don't think I could live with that.

You've read everything that's been posted.I'm thinking of taking MediaWiki for a test drive.

I think they would have to choose if and how much. It could be their books sales generate enough income that it wouldn't be a problem. It could also be that the format decided on would require significant changes to the language. It could be they are willing to sponsor the wiki without making contributions at all.I don't think we want to assume too many specific outcomes for the project, especially since wikis can be so unpredictable.

Part with their IP? Anyway, this project could never replace the existing site till it had at least as much information available. That could be a while, especially if Refsnes Data keeps adding material the way they have been.I would imagine the two sites existing side-by-side for a while, same way this board does.

Four things would have to happen for this thing to work.1. A dedicated core of geeks needs to form some basic agreements. Yes, I'm thinking of "us," whoever we are, but not limiting it to us. Other people on this board are pretty competent, and some of them are even female. Plus, a lot of you have other contacts. Some vetting would have to happen, but that's another conversation.2. The core group decides on design principles and basic philosophies. We work on some mock-ups.3. This part takes some time. We get ONE simple thing done really, really well. Probably a tag reference. It needs to be as good as W3Schools and maybe even better, just to show the power of a wiki. I have ideas on that, but they're not important now. We'll call this product "proof of concept."4. It all builds up to this. We approach Refsnes Data with "proof of concept" and a modest proposal. No contracts, no promises. Just a little talk about what a future relationship could possibly entail. (Emphasis on cooperation, not competition.) What we ask for is a link from their site to the wiki. As EVERYONE seems to be saying, this whole conversation exists because of W3Schools' SEO rankings.Without a link to the highest ranked WebDev site, this project vanishes into the shadows. With a link, it has a serious chance.At that point, we open things up a bit.

I shouldn't have said port. I just meant, what if you have to move it to another machine?So you're saying WikiPedia's implementation of their own wiki software is pretty different from the way it comes out of the box? I guess that shouldn't be surprising.

Hosted sucks. Got it. How bad? And how hard to port when the time comes?