Why Asp.Net (and Web Development in General) Sucks Today [modified]
-
Because all I have to do is add a page and I get the same look/feel (thanks Mr. MasterPage) without a lot of copy/pasting, and I really have very little javascript to deal with (add to that a legacy asp page would require using vb script). It's more convenient, but I still hate it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
using vb script
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
but I still hate it
I thought you LOOOOOVED VB? :-D
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
using vb script
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
but I still hate it
I thought you LOOOOOVED VB? :-D
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924Brave man!
-
Brave man!
I'm out of range... :laugh:
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924 -
I'm out of range... :laugh:
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924How do you know?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
How do you know?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997I think you need quite a missile silo in your back yard to fire anything from Texas to Stockholm, Sweden... :)
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924 -
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlASP.NET probably wasn't the best choice, PHP would probably have been better for a few pages with little functionality like this. Doubtless this will incite a holy war, but in my defence I've spent about 30% of my carrer as a ASP.NET dev (the rest is all .net). Otherwise web development simultaneously sucks and blows from time to time.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlI had that EXACT same problem a while back. It really had me stumped and I had to ask a question here about it: JavaScript Not Called When Defined in External ".JS" File. What a pain in the rear.
This is not the age of reason, this is the age of flummery, and the day of the devious approach. Reason’s gone into the backrooms where it works to devise means by which people can be induced to emote in the desired direction.
-
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlDo you know yet whether your new web site will be blocked at work?
Best wishes, Hans
-
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlAlso, regarding your App_Code problem. In ASP.Net web applications, I don't think you need an App_Code folder. I think everything just compiles to a DLL and you need to toss that on your website. "Publishing" the site to a local folder will give you the correct output format for when you actually deploy it (e.g., you might need to put the DLL in a "bin" folder, but I'm not sure about that).
This is not the age of reason, this is the age of flummery, and the day of the devious approach. Reason’s gone into the backrooms where it works to devise means by which people can be induced to emote in the desired direction.
-
Do you know yet whether your new web site will be blocked at work?
Best wishes, Hans
Nope, but I will by Monday. I was trying to get the framework part done, and then make the switch (this weekend). With little-to-no content, there should be no reason at all for it to be blocked. BTW, I have a method that will resolve the path to a specified file (like an image, script, or whatever). It allows me to have fully qualified URLs for every file reference, no matter the location of the site. It appears to work pretty well if you want the code. It's not all encompassing, but as situations arise, it would be a simple matter to modify. For me, I just specify the relative path wherever I use a filename, and the method (in a base
Pageclass) figures out the full path. I know I shouldn't have to do that, but all evidence points to being required for access from behind our stupid firewall.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
I think you need quite a missile silo in your back yard to fire anything from Texas to Stockholm, Sweden... :)
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, 1924Did you ever see Wanted?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
ASP.NET probably wasn't the best choice, PHP would probably have been better for a few pages with little functionality like this. Doubtless this will incite a holy war, but in my defence I've spent about 30% of my carrer as a ASP.NET dev (the rest is all .net). Otherwise web development simultaneously sucks and blows from time to time.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Well, PHP reminds me too much of VB, and the place that's hosting my original web site forced me to use PHP because they don't host .Net - or Silverlight. It's just better to have a .Net web site. That way, I can add stuff in preparation for interviews that illustrate Silverlight and (WCF) web service knowledge.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlJohn Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I though, "Hmmm, that closing script tag isn't necessary because there's not content between the open and closing of the element", so I deleted it (and added the obligatory slash to the end of the opening tag.
There's a reason for that, you can have content inside a tags, so, I think is more about a lack of understanding of how the web works...but don't worry, I've been bitten by that too. <div class="signature"><a target="_blank" href="http://seeker.dice.com/profman/servlet/ProfMan?op=1052&fileName=a99a3c4076f4243f1619d3113fb42f8a">Jaime </a> <a href="http://jaime_febres.elance.com" target="_blank">Febres</a> <a href="http://emiajnet.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The worst blog in the world</a> </div></x-turndown>
-
So there I was, re-doing my web site from scratch. It's certainly not anything impressive or fancy, or even technologically "advanced" - it's just a bunch of static web pages, and I'm using ASP.Net to implement them. It's the Same, Only Different I started my new web site as a web "application". I immediately created a base class for inheriting by the various pages because I had some functionality I wanted in each page, and being a devoted OOP guy, figured this way was the best way. So, when I right-clicked the solution and tried to add the new class, I was expecting the IDE to prompt me to create the App_Code folder. Imaging my surprise when it didn't. Not to be disuaded, I manually created the App_Code folder (and I even got the appropriate icon in the solution browser). In the class source file, I changed the class to be partial and inherit from the
Pageclass, and I immediately noticed that syntax highlighting wasn't working, and neither was intellisense, but the code compiled file. WTF? Then, when I went to derive the Default class from my BasePage class, intellisense said it couldn't find the class I was trying to inherit. I posted a question here about it, asking if it was because I chose Web *application* instead of web *SITE*, and then immediately went back to it, deleting the application, and starting a web *site*. Lo and behold, everything worked the way I was expecting it to work. a day or so later, I returned to my question here, and someone provided what might be a solution - add the App_Code folder to the compiler section of the web.config file - MANUALLY. RANT: Why the f*ck do I have to do this manually to get the code to compile, and for the IDE to give me the same stuff that I already get for a web SITE? This is the FIFTH iteration of Vistual Studio that supports .Net, and this is STILL an issue. You Must and Must Not Do It That Way I use a 7-year-old-no-longer-supported javascript menu called TransMenu (with some minor modifications to fix some stuff, and add a little extra functionality). I was well down the road in terms of the basic framework for my web page, regarding styles and other stuff. Two days ago, I copied the TransMenu code from my existing web site to the master page in new one. The impact on existing files was very mnimal, involving adding thescriptelement to theheadsection on the master page, setting up anonloadhandler for thebodyof the page, and finally, adding the htmlthis is one of my most vehement hatreds of VS and MS in general to do with web ... they try to make web seem like it works the same as desktop by cludging a whole heap of steaming doodoos behind the scenes to make things kinda work the web IS NOT the desktop ... it DOES NOT work the same way ... you have to use a DIFFERENT APPROACH when writing a website than a desktop app ... and finally people who don't understand web SHOULD NOT DO IT ... learn how it works first then do it right (which would most probably not involve winforms) like they did with VB MS has lowered the bar to *apparent* entry so people are coding websites that handle sensitive data who have NO F***ING IDEA how the web works and what happens? *breathes* john you would not expect a web developer to be able to pick up VS and start hacking a desktop app whilst complaining about how it doesn't work like the web does ... why are you doing it in reverse?
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
Well, PHP reminds me too much of VB, and the place that's hosting my original web site forced me to use PHP because they don't host .Net - or Silverlight. It's just better to have a .Net web site. That way, I can add stuff in preparation for interviews that illustrate Silverlight and (WCF) web service knowledge.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997ummmm php is the same syntax a c / c++ / c# / java ... where do you get the VB analogy from?
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
Well, PHP reminds me too much of VB, and the place that's hosting my original web site forced me to use PHP because they don't host .Net - or Silverlight. It's just better to have a .Net web site. That way, I can add stuff in preparation for interviews that illustrate Silverlight and (WCF) web service knowledge.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
That way, I can add stuff in preparation for interviews that illustrate Silverlight and (WCF) web service knowledge.
Ahh, ASP.Net is indeed a better way to go.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
ummmm php is the same syntax a c / c++ / c# / java ... where do you get the VB analogy from?
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Yeah, I know it's got similar syntax, but it's typeless, and it has those stupid $ signs...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I though, "Hmmm, that closing script tag isn't necessary because there's not content between the open and closing of the element", so I deleted it (and added the obligatory slash to the end of the opening tag.
There's a reason for that, you can have content inside a tags, so, I think is more about a lack of understanding of how the web works...but don't worry, I've been bitten by that too. <div class="signature"><a target="_blank" href="http://seeker.dice.com/profman/servlet/ProfMan?op=1052&fileName=a99a3c4076f4243f1619d3113fb42f8a">Jaime </a> <a href="http://jaime_febres.elance.com" target="_blank">Febres</a> <a href="http://emiajnet.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The worst blog in the world</a> </div></x-turndown>
I know how the web works, but requiring a closing tag instead of allowing "/>" when there's no content in the element is just absurd.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
this is one of my most vehement hatreds of VS and MS in general to do with web ... they try to make web seem like it works the same as desktop by cludging a whole heap of steaming doodoos behind the scenes to make things kinda work the web IS NOT the desktop ... it DOES NOT work the same way ... you have to use a DIFFERENT APPROACH when writing a website than a desktop app ... and finally people who don't understand web SHOULD NOT DO IT ... learn how it works first then do it right (which would most probably not involve winforms) like they did with VB MS has lowered the bar to *apparent* entry so people are coding websites that handle sensitive data who have NO F***ING IDEA how the web works and what happens? *breathes* john you would not expect a web developer to be able to pick up VS and start hacking a desktop app whilst complaining about how it doesn't work like the web does ... why are you doing it in reverse?
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
why are you doing it in reverse?
Because I'm old. I said I don't like web development because it's stateless (implying I know about the differences). I'm not trying to make my web page like a desktop app - I'm complaining about web development itself and the absurdities surrounding it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997 -
l a u r e n wrote:
why are you doing it in reverse?
Because I'm old. I said I don't like web development because it's stateless (implying I know about the differences). I'm not trying to make my web page like a desktop app - I'm complaining about web development itself and the absurdities surrounding it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997but there are just as many absurdities with any kind of programming i think the problem is (and i used to suffer from it myself) that desktop devs (like we all were cos web devs didn't exist when we started) don't think of web dev as a "serious" thing and expect to be able to do it because we are programmers that is no longer true today nor has it been for a couple of years just cos you can code a desktop app would not imply that you could code a neural net back propagation learning algorithm ... web is the same these day ... it has it's own skill set that is distinctly different to any other kind of dev work :)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"