Looking for JavaScript Validator

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxim Kazitov
  • Start date Start date
Maxim Kazitov said the following on 3/15/2006 2:04 AM:
Hi,
I am looking for some kind of JS valuator. References to any tool which can
validate syntax of JavaScript file highly appreciated.
For now I found only:

http://www.jslint.com/lint.html

http://www.javascriptlint.com/

But both tools give me to many false alerts.
Click to expand...

I don't use javascriptlint.com but jslint.com/lint.html doesn't give
"too many false alerts". It tends to be overly cautious but all of the
messages that jslint gives are valid messages.
 
Simple solution? Use Firefox to validate your JavaScript, it has a built-in
JavaScript console on the Tools menu.
 
Lavanaut said the following on 3/15/2006 7:02 PM:
Simple solution? Use Firefox to validate your JavaScript, it has a built-in
JavaScript console on the Tools menu.
Click to expand...

But, it doesn't validate JS code. So it's not the "Simple solution" you
claim it to be.
 
Randy said:
But, it doesn't validate JS code.
Click to expand...

Neither do the JS Lint tools.



--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
 
Dave Anderson said the following on 3/15/2006 11:39 PM:
Neither do the JS Lint tools.
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but, they do a better job finding possible problems
than the Firefox Console does.
 
I really have to ask... Why are you trying to validate js code?
What is prompting you to want to do this? Are you having debugging
issues or run-time error problems? Trying to match up braces/parens
looking for missing ones or orphans? Do you really have the time to
'belt and suspender' your code in this way? Is this something a
manager has required you to do without understanding what he's asking
for? Whats your motivation?

D?
 
Randy said:
Not specifically, but, they do a better job finding possible
problems than the Firefox Console does.
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on that. The Firefox console[1] can be configured to show
strict warnings, at which point it spits out the same stream of white noise
Lint does.



[1] By which I mean Console²:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=318102

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
 
Dave Anderson said the following on 3/16/2006 8:16 AM:
Randy said:
Not specifically, but, they do a better job finding possible
problems than the Firefox Console does.
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on that. The Firefox console[1] can be configured to show
strict warnings, at which point it spits out the same stream of white noise
Lint does.
Click to expand...

"White noise"? I actually had to go set Firefox to Strict Warnings to
see what you were talking about. Both are hideous to say the least.
[1] By which I mean Console²:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=318102
Click to expand...

Thats the same one I have. But, I very seldom ever set it to spit out
strict warnings.

But then again, I think I have used JSLint once just to see what it
would tell me.

I don't think either do a good job of "validating" JS but I think JSLint
does a better job. Just my opinion is all.
 
top.
to
bottom
from
read
not
do
conversations
sentences,
Like
toppost.
not
do
Please
I really have to ask... Why are you trying to validate js code?
Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong person. I do not "try to validate" javascript. I
merely observed that the suggested Lint tools do not validate javascript.
Ask the OP.



--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
 
dNagel said:
Hey Dave, go waste someone else's time with your personal preferences.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were confused by my use of the word "please".



--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
 
Dave Anderson wrote:

top.
to
bottom
from
read
not
do
conversations
sentences,
Like
toppost.
not
do
Please

It's an interesting convention, this bottom posting one. When you're in an
ongoing conversation and you've read everything, there's absolutely no need
to read what's gone before - it's already in your head. As such it's
inefficient having to scroll down to the bottom to read the next snippet in
the story, expecially if it's become a saga. Top posting is thus much
better.

But when you're responding to stuff in the middle of the quoted posts then
middle posting is the only way to go.

And if you're wanting to know the entire story from a single post because
you're not part of it, perhaps reading it a few months later, then "top to
bottom from read not do.." makes good sense. Bottom posting is much better.

And if you're doing this newsgroup stuff a lot and have a strong preference
for top or middle or bottom and dislike having to do preliminary "direction
detection" ... then whichever you like is much better.

Hmmmm..... LOL
:-DD

We won't even begin to talk about those who post in HTML using fonts that my
poor eyes can't read very well!
 
Back
Top