4 ms·
In this way you can attach just one function to the event. Other way allows for more flexibility. Alright. To me it sounded a bit like onmouseover was used onl
by shiranaihito 17y ago
In this way you can attach just one function to the event. Other way allows for more flexibility.
Alright. To me it sounded a bit like onmouseover was used only by bad programmers.
- nostrademons 17y agoI'm kinda curious why you would ever use onmouseover when attachEvent/addEventListener are available? I just took out the remaining calls to .onEvent handlers in websearch's JS library - the only browsers that don't support the W3C/IE event models are so ancient that they don't get JS anyway, and there's not much point using a method that's unnecessary on modern browsers and does the wrong thing anyway. So yeah, my interviewer wasn't implying that onmouseover is used only by bad programmers, but I am. ;-)
- shiranaihito 17y agoMaybe I only need one event handler, or maybe I've baked a function that calls another function? Besides, I'd rather use one standard method that works across browsers than choose one based on the user's browser. Would you call that bad programming? :p Nowadays I generally use jQuery (.click(fn)) though.
- nostrademons 17y agoAh, okay. Most of the stuff I've worked on adds events through a library (eg. jQuery.click(fn)), and there's no reason for that library to use onmouseover etc.