I can't believe I have to learn Java and all this web nonsense
-
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... :)
----
-
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:
some executive tells us
I am not one of them, why you are pouring it on me :) and ajax is more of avoiding iframe then using it --- My first article^
-
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
led mike wrote:
I had to build the house I was born in.
That loud pop you heard was brain exploding after entering an infinite loop attempting to comprehend the logic in that statement :~
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
:( 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 not surprising, since most frameworks tend to be general purpose. Besides, JavaScript rocks. It has nothing to do with Java. Learn it, live it, love it. Jeremy Falcon
-
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... :)
----
My 5 - I've only done a little DHTML/DOM development, but I've found it's not just because you've got DOM inspector and nice JavaScript consoles and debuggers and things, but because the FireFox way is the right way, and the amount of dirtyness in your code is less when you develop for FF first than when you go IE first.
-
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.
----
Shog9 wrote:
C++-style "everything is an object"
????? C++ is always derided by OO purists because it doesn't have "everything is an object"....now if you were talking C# or Java, no argument, but C++ - nah. C++ is my (Win32 client) development language of choice because it allows me to use so many different paradigms.
-
led mike wrote:
some executive tells us
I am not one of them, why you are pouring it on me :) and ajax is more of avoiding iframe then using it --- My first article^
Sorry that was not meant to be pointed at you.
Quartz... wrote:
ajax is more of avoiding iframe then using it
Not sure I agree with that. Sure the XmlHttpRequest object is prefered but the main point of Ajax is the asynchronous communications. Using an IFrame is referenced as a method of Ajax communications in many places including Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX[^]
"What classes are you using ? You shouldn't call stuff if you have no idea what it does" Christian Graus in the C# forum led mike
-
Shog9 wrote:
C++-style "everything is an object"
????? C++ is always derided by OO purists because it doesn't have "everything is an object"....now if you were talking C# or Java, no argument, but C++ - nah. C++ is my (Win32 client) development language of choice because it allows me to use so many different paradigms.
Eh, yeah... I worded that badly. :-O C has data structures. Straight-forward, easy to understand. Write a few routines that work on a given datastructure, you've got some basic OO. Play around with function pointers, you can start having fun. C++ makes all this a bit less messy - so suddenly there's this idea that every datastructure is an object, and needs to be treated accordingly. No big deal - so long as you avoid virtual functions, it really doesn't cost you anything. But it doesn't necessarily buy you anything either - sometimes, a datastructure is just a datastructure. It's a matter of taste. Trying this in JS though... well, it's stupid and costly. Since there's no strong typing, you're better off defining datastructures as you need them, and leaving full-blown object notation for the larger, more important aspects of your program.
----
-
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:
JavaScript is amazing
I wouldn't call it amazing. I would say it is just nicer than we all previously thought :) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
:( 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".
Anyone who calls it "web nonsense" had better get a clue :) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
David Stone wrote:
JavaScript is amazing
I wouldn't call it amazing. I would say it is just nicer than we all previously thought :) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Well yeah...that's true. You know what is amazing? C# 3.0 and LINQ. So :cool:.
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:
JavaScript is amazing
I wouldn't call it amazing. I would say it is just nicer than we all previously thought :) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Oh, by the way, you never did answer my question. How'd you like the CPhog beta?
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. -
Well yeah...that's true. You know what is amazing? C# 3.0 and LINQ. So :cool:.
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:
You know what is amazing? C# 3.0 and LINQ
Hell yeah. I want to be using it now. CPhog. I went sailing last night instead of installing the beta. I know, what a poor choice on my part. I'll try and get around to it today. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
:( 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:
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.
Intimate knowledge of the IDE is essential to getting anything done in asp.net
John Cardinal wrote:
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".
I thnk that's pretty funny considering IE's own lack of standards support. ------- sig starts "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
David Stone wrote:
You know what is amazing? C# 3.0 and LINQ
Hell yeah. I want to be using it now. CPhog. I went sailing last night instead of installing the beta. I know, what a poor choice on my part. I'll try and get around to it today. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Hell yeah. I want to be using it now.
I am using it now. ;P
Paul Watson wrote:
CPhog. I went sailing last night instead of installing the beta.
C'mon man, where are your priorities?! :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. -
Paul Watson wrote:
Hell yeah. I want to be using it now.
I am using it now. ;P
Paul Watson wrote:
CPhog. I went sailing last night instead of installing the beta.
C'mon man, where are your priorities?! :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:
I am using it now
In serious apps or for your personal projects? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
David Stone wrote:
I am using it now
In serious apps or for your personal projects? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
In serious apps or for your personal projects?
Apps dealing with large amounts of financial data... :rolleyes: No. I'm just using it for personal projects. It's pretty cool stuff. Then again, I'm also running PowerShell RC1, WinFX Beta 2, Office 12 Beta 1, etc etc etc... :-D
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. -
Paul Watson wrote:
In serious apps or for your personal projects?
Apps dealing with large amounts of financial data... :rolleyes: No. I'm just using it for personal projects. It's pretty cool stuff. Then again, I'm also running PowerShell RC1, WinFX Beta 2, Office 12 Beta 1, etc etc etc... :-D
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 just ran across a situation where I wanted to overload a method based on its return type. Brian says C# 3.0 will have that. Please sir, I want it now. Am I right in saying it is a language spec and compiler change and won't need any .NET Framework changes? That is cool. You still got the PowerShell RC1 download? I want it but can't get it from the MS site. I'll install CPHog beta now if you email PS RC1 to me :-D regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
I just ran across a situation where I wanted to overload a method based on its return type. Brian says C# 3.0 will have that. Please sir, I want it now. Am I right in saying it is a language spec and compiler change and won't need any .NET Framework changes? That is cool. You still got the PowerShell RC1 download? I want it but can't get it from the MS site. I'll install CPHog beta now if you email PS RC1 to me :-D regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Am I right in saying it is a language spec and compiler change and won't need any .NET Framework changes? That is cool.
You are correct in that it won't need massive CLR changes like generics, iterators, and anonymous methods did. There are definitely going to be some changes to the FCL though.
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.
