CB programming (in General)

Matshi May 18 2005 12:30 PM EDT

Wouldn't you be able to program CB with ActiveX instead of Java? Then people wouldn't have to mess with installing Sun's JVM and stuff.

bartjan May 18 2005 12:35 PM EDT

I leave it to all others to comment on the various security issues surrounding activeX (or is it 1 big issue?).

I'll only add the point that ActiveX only works under Internet Explorer. Ask again when Microsoft happens to provide a version of ActiveX that runs under Linux for example (and when all other issues with it are solved).

By the way, CB is *not* programmed in Java. It runs on the server and is written in TCL (see FAQs->Behind the Scenes).

Mags May 18 2005 12:36 PM EDT

And, there are some poor souls out there who use Macs. Not that the Java runs that much better for us, but someday it ought to.

BrandonLP May 18 2005 1:59 PM EDT

bartjan is correct. The only Java part of CB is chat.

Undertow May 18 2005 2:06 PM EDT

And chat is 3rd party, Jon didn't have anything to do with programming it.

HellBlender May 18 2005 2:12 PM EDT

ActiveX? Boo!!

now python could make for a great chat alternative. of course, that's if what we had was broken to begin with :)

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] May 18 2005 2:28 PM EDT

Or Jon could have one of those javascript/tcl non-realtime page update chat type systems, I know everyone would LOVE that.

AdminJonathan May 18 2005 3:26 PM EDT

Actually, I was the principle developer for NFC chat for the years it was under active development for CB

QBsutekh137 May 18 2005 4:10 PM EDT

*principal. Working on the chat application did not imbue the _principal_ developer with any spelling skills, apparently.


Vagabond May 18 2005 4:15 PM EDT

ahem... context Chet, context


Vagabond May 18 2005 4:17 PM EDT

on that note, I guess either would work in this context

Vagabond May 18 2005 4:21 PM EDT

ok, nevermind, you were right, principal is better. I'd just used principle incorrectly for a long time I guess.

QBsutekh137 May 18 2005 4:59 PM EDT

It was weird, I wasn't sure, because I looked up "principle" on freedictioanry.org, and it was like they couldn't find it. But then "principal" sounded like it meant "main".

Bottom line: I was being a petulant prick, as it is what I do best. *smile*

[-war-] May 18 2005 5:50 PM EDT

fire fox don't support activeX, I think only IE does, perhaps netscape also.

Frod May 24 2005 3:51 PM EDT

now python could make for a great chat alternative.

OK, I'm probably either the #1 or #2 fan of Python on CB, but precisely how would you propose to get python code running on the client via the browser?

(and if you mention "Grail" I'm going to have to throw rocks at you...)

AdminJonathan May 24 2005 4:08 PM EDT

Jython, of course. :)

Special J May 24 2005 4:43 PM EDT


A buggy JVM is far better than activex could ever want to be, sadly.

Karmic Mishap [Soup Ream] May 24 2005 6:35 PM EDT

The sadness is extreme. As things stand, ActiveX does little but break some bank sites and deliver malware to the masses. The evil of it all...

Undertow May 24 2005 7:40 PM EDT

I didn't know you helped to devolop the chat client Jon... if you programmed that much of it, why are you so hesitant to change it? I don't understand.

Frod May 24 2005 8:19 PM EDT

From the Chat FAQ:

Q: Can you add this new feature?

A: Probably not. But hey, the source is linked right above this. You can make your own client that does anything you want. Hey, if it really is a rockin' idea, I'll even port it back to mine.

That doesn't sound like "hesitant"... it sounds more like "not interested in doing it myself, because what we have is good enough, and I haven't seen any ideas that are that much of an improvement".

On the other hand, making your own client is probably easier than you think. The chat protocol is dead simple--I implemented the 80% that I needed for Frodbot in an hour mostly by watching what the "real" client sends and receives.

AdminJonathan May 24 2005 9:23 PM EDT

Server features (chatmail, integrated op system, etc) were a lot more work than the client. Like Frod says, it's pretty simple.

Well, except for integrating compression into the protocol. That took a fair bit of debugging.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Llx">CB programming</a>