I can't believe I have to learn Java and all this web nonsense
-
:( I'm developing an asp.net application and we're using a UI framework for it. I'm finding all sorts of cases where I have to use a little Java code to get things done the way I want. No point really, just something I spent a lifetime consciously avoiding is now dropped in my lap. Going from windows form development to asp.net web development even with the aid of all the best and most modern tools in the world is pretty overwhelming. Almost nothing you learned has any relevancy other than the nut's and bolts code behind the scenes. One thing that's a bit humorous is seeing all the workarounds for FireFox in the automatically generated javascript coming from both Microsoft and our UI framework components. Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
John Cardinal wrote:
I'm finding all sorts of cases where I have to use a little Java code to get things done the way I want.
Um, Java or JavaScript? Just making sure you're not confusing them. Java and .NET use quite a different set of frameworks for web development. It's true that Microsoft created J#, but C# is a better alternative. Regards, Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
:( I'm developing an asp.net application and we're using a UI framework for it. I'm finding all sorts of cases where I have to use a little Java code to get things done the way I want. No point really, just something I spent a lifetime consciously avoiding is now dropped in my lap. Going from windows form development to asp.net web development even with the aid of all the best and most modern tools in the world is pretty overwhelming. Almost nothing you learned has any relevancy other than the nut's and bolts code behind the scenes. One thing that's a bit humorous is seeing all the workarounds for FireFox in the automatically generated javascript coming from both Microsoft and our UI framework components. Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
It's Java_Script_. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it. And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
:( I'm developing an asp.net application and we're using a UI framework for it. I'm finding all sorts of cases where I have to use a little Java code to get things done the way I want. No point really, just something I spent a lifetime consciously avoiding is now dropped in my lap. Going from windows form development to asp.net web development even with the aid of all the best and most modern tools in the world is pretty overwhelming. Almost nothing you learned has any relevancy other than the nut's and bolts code behind the scenes. One thing that's a bit humorous is seeing all the workarounds for FireFox in the automatically generated javascript coming from both Microsoft and our UI framework components. Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
John Cardinal wrote:
Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
Maybe the MS developers put those comments in there so that threads exactly like this one would propogate the net; in an attempt to tarnish people's opinions of the rival browser. :^) Josh
-
It's Java_Script_. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it. And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug.David Stone wrote:
And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Actually, it's not just a personal preference thing - there's a good reason: Firefox is currently more standards-compliant, and IE is heading more towards standards compliance, so if you develop for Firefox first, and then add hacks for IE, then later on you can drop many of those hacks and you'll have just the standards-compliant code. Oh, and another one: the web developer tools in Firefox make things so much easier when you're doing the initial coding!
-
It's Java_Script_. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it. And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug.David Stone wrote:
It's JavaScript. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it.
As scripting languages go I agree it is by far the best. However it is still a scripting language so by definition it sucks. :laugh: Java on the other hand is not that bad. At least it used to be Ok with several major shortfalls. I just saw some post the past few days where someone was hating with a passion the Generics in Java. I have not seen it yet. Anyway give me C++ or C# or go away. :cool: led mike -- modified at 22:05 Thursday 4th May, 2006 Sorry forgot to thank you for the tip about developing for FireFox and then fixing IE's incompatibilities. Great information! :)
-
David Stone wrote:
And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Actually, it's not just a personal preference thing - there's a good reason: Firefox is currently more standards-compliant, and IE is heading more towards standards compliance, so if you develop for Firefox first, and then add hacks for IE, then later on you can drop many of those hacks and you'll have just the standards-compliant code. Oh, and another one: the web developer tools in Firefox make things so much easier when you're doing the initial coding!
Justin...think of who you're talking to. ;) I know all this. ;P I was just cushioning it so that John wouldn't start on the normal "You're just one of those crazy Fx zealots" excuses. :rolleyes:
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
David Stone wrote:
It's JavaScript. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it.
As scripting languages go I agree it is by far the best. However it is still a scripting language so by definition it sucks. :laugh: Java on the other hand is not that bad. At least it used to be Ok with several major shortfalls. I just saw some post the past few days where someone was hating with a passion the Generics in Java. I have not seen it yet. Anyway give me C++ or C# or go away. :cool: led mike -- modified at 22:05 Thursday 4th May, 2006 Sorry forgot to thank you for the tip about developing for FireFox and then fixing IE's incompatibilities. Great information! :)
led mike wrote:
I just saw some post the past few days where someone was hating with a passion the Generics in Java.
That was me. :-D
led mike wrote:
However it is still a scripting language so by definition it sucks.
No. That's not true. Scripting languages are awesome...for the appropriate uses. There's no reason to hate on scripting languages. Now, don't get me wrong, I :love: C#. I'm running the current C# 3.0 CTP...and am eagerly awaiting the next one (coming up in a few weeks). But I also :love: JavaScript. Because it's awesome for what it does. :)
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
John Cardinal wrote:
Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
Maybe the MS developers put those comments in there so that threads exactly like this one would propogate the net; in an attempt to tarnish people's opinions of the rival browser. :^) Josh
I think they're more likely in there because the ASP.NET devs develop for IE first, then put in hacks to make it work in Fx as well. :) But the conspiracy theory approach sounds good too. :suss:
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
I think they're more likely in there because the ASP.NET devs develop for IE first, then put in hacks to make it work in Fx as well. :) But the conspiracy theory approach sounds good too. :suss:
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug.Oh, you and your logic! :-D Trust me, it's a conspiracy...it runs deep, man...real deep :suss:
-
:( I'm developing an asp.net application and we're using a UI framework for it. I'm finding all sorts of cases where I have to use a little Java code to get things done the way I want. No point really, just something I spent a lifetime consciously avoiding is now dropped in my lap. Going from windows form development to asp.net web development even with the aid of all the best and most modern tools in the world is pretty overwhelming. Almost nothing you learned has any relevancy other than the nut's and bolts code behind the scenes. One thing that's a bit humorous is seeing all the workarounds for FireFox in the automatically generated javascript coming from both Microsoft and our UI framework components. Every time I open up the markup page to see what's what I see all sorts of comments "fix for firefox" or "workaround for firefox".
Javascript is the best of the client side scripting languages. However it's support for OO is ummm well retarded? web development by it's very nature is horrid at best. I was doing it with CGI as early as … 94 i think on Apache using C and printf() to generate HTML. How fun does that sound! X| Now using Java or ASP.NET with DHTML and Javascript you have two of everything that you have to manage. Two languages (more if you count things like HTML, XML, XSLT, XPath), two object models, two sets of variables. All for the pleasure of creating a lowest common denominator user interface and experience. And we have not even addressed Browser Compatibility, Standards and Managers that have not a freakin clue about any of this but of course think they do because they put some pictures of their grandkids on a web site! :mad: Wait is this the Soapbox? Oh sorry.:-> led mike
-
led mike wrote:
I just saw some post the past few days where someone was hating with a passion the Generics in Java.
That was me. :-D
led mike wrote:
However it is still a scripting language so by definition it sucks.
No. That's not true. Scripting languages are awesome...for the appropriate uses. There's no reason to hate on scripting languages. Now, don't get me wrong, I :love: C#. I'm running the current C# 3.0 CTP...and am eagerly awaiting the next one (coming up in a few weeks). But I also :love: JavaScript. Because it's awesome for what it does. :)
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
Javascript is the best of the client side scripting languages. However it's support for OO is ummm well retarded? web development by it's very nature is horrid at best. I was doing it with CGI as early as … 94 i think on Apache using C and printf() to generate HTML. How fun does that sound! X| Now using Java or ASP.NET with DHTML and Javascript you have two of everything that you have to manage. Two languages (more if you count things like HTML, XML, XSLT, XPath), two object models, two sets of variables. All for the pleasure of creating a lowest common denominator user interface and experience. And we have not even addressed Browser Compatibility, Standards and Managers that have not a freakin clue about any of this but of course think they do because they put some pictures of their grandkids on a web site! :mad: Wait is this the Soapbox? Oh sorry.:-> led mike
led mike wrote:
on Apache using C and printf() to generate HTML. How fun does that sound
as much fun as ASP and Response.Write, or C# and Response.Write, or PHP and print, or Perl and print... :) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
if it is JavaScript you better suck it up because its quite IN thing with ajax and if it is core java There is very little difference between c sharp and java if you know how to handle classes in .net you can smoothly do it in java Workaround for FF now that is a different topic all together :) --- My first article^
Quartz... wrote:
because its quite IN thing with ajax
Don't even get me started on this Ajax crap! :mad: We did ajax in an IFrame back in 2000 and it's still running today! Then 5 months ago when the hype started some executive tells us to "Look into using Ajax to solve our problems". What you mean pour some Ajax in a garbage disposal and shove you in behind it to clean the company up, Buzz Word Man? It's all hype there is nothing new but the drag n drop code generators for developers that can't handle using the Text Wizard. Wait this is still not the Soapbox .. Damn! :-O led mike
-
led mike wrote:
on Apache using C and printf() to generate HTML. How fun does that sound
as much fun as ASP and Response.Write, or C# and Response.Write, or PHP and print, or Perl and print... :) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I hear you. But at least with ASP and C# you can leverage XML and XSLT transforms to generate some of the HTML for you. (Don't know about PHP and Perl) Back in the old days things were really hard. I had to build the house I was born in. :wtf: :laugh: led mike
-
Justin...think of who you're talking to. ;) I know all this. ;P I was just cushioning it so that John wouldn't start on the normal "You're just one of those crazy Fx zealots" excuses. :rolleyes:
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug. -
John Cardinal wrote:
the workarounds for FireFox
This is something new to me. I always do workarounds for IE. In fact there is not a single CSS layout I have done where IE was buggy.
I second that. Most of my work arounds have been around IE, maybe one or to for FF, but mainly I try to find a middle ground where it works in both with no work arounds, which is not an easy task sometimes. :sigh:
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
John Cardinal wrote:
the workarounds for FireFox
This is something new to me. I always do workarounds for IE. In fact there is not a single CSS layout I have done where IE was buggy.
If you write to FF, you'll end up adding a few work-arounds for IE. If you write to IE, you'll end up adding a few work-arounds for FF. In my experience, it's generally easier to add work-arounds for IE to a FF-centric page than the reverse. IE has some really bizarre stuff hanging around for compatibility reasons (pre-IE5 DOM manipulation was... odd), whereas FF pretty much dropped compatibility with the weirder NS4 stuff.
----
-
I hear you. But at least with ASP and C# you can leverage XML and XSLT transforms to generate some of the HTML for you. (Don't know about PHP and Perl) Back in the old days things were really hard. I had to build the house I was born in. :wtf: :laugh: led mike
-
Javascript is the best of the client side scripting languages. However it's support for OO is ummm well retarded? web development by it's very nature is horrid at best. I was doing it with CGI as early as … 94 i think on Apache using C and printf() to generate HTML. How fun does that sound! X| Now using Java or ASP.NET with DHTML and Javascript you have two of everything that you have to manage. Two languages (more if you count things like HTML, XML, XSLT, XPath), two object models, two sets of variables. All for the pleasure of creating a lowest common denominator user interface and experience. And we have not even addressed Browser Compatibility, Standards and Managers that have not a freakin clue about any of this but of course think they do because they put some pictures of their grandkids on a web site! :mad: Wait is this the Soapbox? Oh sorry.:-> led mike
led mike wrote:
However it's support for OO is ummm well retarded?
Eh, only if you want a C++-style "everything is an object" program. I love C, and C++ is a pretty good convenience hack for C-style OO, but it's not very useful to carry that mindset to other languages or platforms.
----
-
It's Java_Script_. Java sucks. JavaScript is amazing. I can't believe you don't like it. And by the way, it's nicer if you develop for firefox, then port hacks to IE. Just my opinion, anyway.
Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug.
-Shog9 on...a Firefox bug.David Stone wrote:
Just my opinion, anyway.
Naw. To the extent that development niceties can be measured, FF-centric web development is quantifiably nicer than IE-centric web development. And anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight... :)
----
