I can't believe I have to learn Java and all this web nonsense
-
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. -
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.:laugh: Actually it's out of my control, I'm not hand coding the pages, I don't have time for that, I'm using a UI component library and avoiding hand coding as much as possible. It appears from reading the comments here that the UI framework is targetting IE primarily with workarounds for FF. It's not a ware I want to get involved in, I just want it to work and I know for a fact 99% of our customers are using whatever browser was installed with their os anyway.
-
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. -
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 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!
About as much fun as the previous version of the app I'm writing now which was also a web interface for our main commercial application but in 1999 I actually wrote teh web *server* to go with it so in one sense this is probably much easier.
-
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.
-
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
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Intimate knowledge of the IDE is essential to getting anything done in asp.net
You got that right. I ended up watching some video's from MSDN. One was for Master pages and I learned a lot from that but the guy was ripping through the UI clicking about as fast as humanly possible and I had to keep pausing and re-watching it to see what he was clicking on and follow along. There is so much that is very subtly built into the IDE.
-
:( 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".
-
:( 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".
The fixes, for Firefox is quite a thriller. The reality is that Firefox is by far the best browser when it comes to follow the standards, specially the css2. Since asp.net comes from Redmond they use IE as a benchmark. The point is that Visual studio makes code that is designed for IE6 which doesn't follow the standard very well. In order to get the functionality up to standard there has to be fixes for browser which follow the standards. Need isn't it.
-
The fixes, for Firefox is quite a thriller. The reality is that Firefox is by far the best browser when it comes to follow the standards, specially the css2. Since asp.net comes from Redmond they use IE as a benchmark. The point is that Visual studio makes code that is designed for IE6 which doesn't follow the standard very well. In order to get the functionality up to standard there has to be fixes for browser which follow the standards. Need isn't it.
Ahhh but this is a case where the ivory tower standard-nistas have it all wrong: In reality, the majority of browsers in use *are* I.E. so when it comes to writing a real world application, IE is the defacto standard. I'm certain you are technically correct, but in the real world it's not practically correct to call firefox more standard by the traditional definition of standard. I've had this discussion I don't know how many times with people, it's fine in an academic sense so say FireFox is superior because if follows standards but in a practical sense it's quite the opposite. How many workarounds do people have to go through writing extensions for Firefox just to make it workable on the majority of websites? Quite a few from what I've seen. In fact the majority of workarounds I see are inserted by the 3rd party control UI library we use which doesn't come from Redmond, but shows the reality of the situation. I have heard that I.E. is increasingly becoming closer to following the book standards in every release so maybe it's only a matter of time before it's a non-issue. Interestingly Opera which I use for testing seems to have no problem with anything. (and is much faster than both FF or IE).
