Needless to say, "JavaScript + AJAX"?
In a recent discussion I said, someone told me that it is wrong to say that, since Ajax is already Javascript.
Content:
"How do I blablablabal on a web page so it can't refresh the page"
My answer:
"Use JavaScript + Ajax"
EDIT
Okay, so, so ... how can I say that? "Use AJAX"? or "Use Javascript"?
a source to share
In this context, I think it is redundant because you are specifically talking about how to get the data on the page without a full query. If you were talking about how you implemented your interface, including many behaviors that don't build queries, then I would say no. You will just be making a distinction between using javascript for some things and AJAX (including javascript) to dynamically update the page with data from the server. It would be wrong to say, for example, that you have used AJAX to create some page animations if you never make an asynchronous request, so they are not interchangeable. It should be enough, however, in the context of fetching data via AJAX that it includes javascript. It does not need to be specified in this context.
a source to share
Ajax is a buzzword that means "Using JavaScript for HTTP requests without leaving the web page." So yes, this is redundant. There are contexts where "JavaScript, including Ajax" makes more sense than "Ajax", but "JavaScript + Ajax" is a little silly.
In this context, I would say:
"Use Ajax, here is a link to a tutorial explaining what it is and how to use it."
or I would explain that it is there and then. Don't just drop a buzzword.
a source to share
Most likely, simply stating that "ajax" to the person asking this question is just confusing them further. If they know about ajax, then they know that this is the method used to "blablablabal on a web page, so it doesn't need to refresh the page".
In a forum post or similar, just specifying "ajax" would be enough if you wanted to be as concise as possible. I expect someone to just google "Ajax" and find out about it.
However, if you want to be more helpful, then perhaps a slightly longer answer is ok.
a source to share
AJAX has taken on its own meaning outside of its original acronym. You can do AJAX without javascript, without xml, and you don't even need to use asynchronous encoding (although you probably should). People will still call it AJAX when we are using websockets and when all browsers support an unfamiliar new programming language other than functional programming that makes multithreading easy and intuitive in 2050.
Think of "ajax" as meaning "dynamic web content with communication between the web page and the server" - as it is used today. To indicate that you are using javascript to achieve this is not overkill in this interpretation.
a source to share