Pet Peeve of the day
-
Isn't it about time we dumped a documentation standard language from the 1980's and developed a 21st Century browser language that was fit for the modern world? Dump HTML, dump JS, dump the whole "human readable" bit for a compressed binary format that supported sandboxed, VM'ed, clientside C# with built in security, authentication, messaging, and so forth? Drag the web (kicking and screaming, probably) into the 21st Century? Heck, the late 20th would be an improvement! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Agreed wholeheartedly! Even HTML5 is like driving a dump truck over a dead horse in the hopes it would fly! Just use a bird FES! You don't even need to look far for any such stuff, nearly every single thing ever needing serialization and/or network throughput soon realizes that XML and even JSON is simply too wasteful and inept, and nearly always turns to binary formatting. HTML is just a hamstrung XML anyway.
-
den2k88 wrote:
Creating PDFs with the hierarchy and automatic summary with links without doing anything particular is wonderful.
Meh! Had that in OpenOffice at least a decade ago (at least since version 1.1). MSO is still catching up on functionality, they spent all their time designing the ribbon and forgot to actually give users better tools.
No please don't speak about that abomination of openOffice. I used it for years, when I was all the revolutionary Penguinman. Then for work I've been "forced" to use MSO 2010 - never been happier in my life. OO and LibreOffice are wonderful tools... compared to MS Office 97. Maybe even Office 2000 (which was unbeatable IMHO until 2010). We're lucky it's only 2016 :-\
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
-
We developers who bend a
ULbackwards to show (essentially) tabular data instead of using aTABLEelement. I know. #wedeveloperproblems #grumpyoldman. Get over it. But it bothers me because it's misguided principles over practicality.cheers Chris Maunder
Speaking or practicality, I get annoyed maintaining C++-code which uses C techniques, like char* instead of std::string or shifts pointers all over the place instead of using offsets from that pointer. Way to kill symbolic debugging, who'd never need that!
-
Suffice it to say that this *great XML thing* is but a petty, comparatively useless, partial clone of what we were using decades ago. What turned people off of PostScript is that adobe sort-of took ownership of it, when they created that king of bloat PDF. Everyone associated PS with PDF, from then on, without actually looking at what a magnificent -- and phenomenally efficient -- beast PS is. So now we're stuck with the endless devotion to XML of people who don't realise that it's trivial, overcomplicated cr@p, compared to PS.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
That's everywhere in programming: "This is the RIGHT way to do it!" But the real right way is the way that: a. Gives the customer what he needs. b. Does not cost an arm and a leg of developer time to produce and maintain. Having principles is fine, but too many principles in programming are based on "What I know how to do", "What I studied", and "What I think is cool". Too many people are too sure of their ability to discern right and wrong where no right or wrong exists, and insist that things be done the way that they have decided to perceive as right. It's not for no reason that KISS was laid down as one of the first tenets of programming. For God's sake, don't get me started on that emasculated PostScript called XML!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
a. Gives the customer what he needs. b. Does not cost an arm and a leg of developer time to produce and maintain.
c. Is very fast despite the unnecessary extras that were added to make it pretty.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
I'm not sure why you're comparing XML to PostScript, I'm guessing you mean Open XML from Microsoft?
XML is like a version of PostScript that's had it's teeth drawn, its arms and legs chopped off, and its dangly bits removed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
a. Gives the customer what he needs. b. Does not cost an arm and a leg of developer time to produce and maintain.
c. Is very fast despite the unnecessary extras that were added to make it pretty.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
Hey, don't go promising too much!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
We developers who bend a
ULbackwards to show (essentially) tabular data instead of using aTABLEelement. I know. #wedeveloperproblems #grumpyoldman. Get over it. But it bothers me because it's misguided principles over practicality.cheers Chris Maunder
Yeah, that one really annoys me too. Yes, tables got abused a bit for layout back in the day (totally guilty here), but that's because they're so useful and for a while nothing else could do the job. Nowadays it seems fashionable to avoid tables at all costs, as if using big steaming piles of CSS to display tabular data without a table is somehow not a sign of idiocy. It's like a religious thing, people cling to this idea that tables are evil without bothering to think about why. It's just become blind dogma among those who think they understand Web development. There has never been anything wrong with tables, but there's everything wrong with designers telling programmers how to do their jobs. And yes, I blame the designers, forever and always, they are the root of all Web evil ;)
-
Yeah, that one really annoys me too. Yes, tables got abused a bit for layout back in the day (totally guilty here), but that's because they're so useful and for a while nothing else could do the job. Nowadays it seems fashionable to avoid tables at all costs, as if using big steaming piles of CSS to display tabular data without a table is somehow not a sign of idiocy. It's like a religious thing, people cling to this idea that tables are evil without bothering to think about why. It's just become blind dogma among those who think they understand Web development. There has never been anything wrong with tables, but there's everything wrong with designers telling programmers how to do their jobs. And yes, I blame the designers, forever and always, they are the root of all Web evil ;)
Tables are EVIL INCARNATE when they're being used for page layout, especially when no planning has been done to consider printing a page full of tables nested in tables when that's one of the unstated (because it was elephant-ing obvious) requirements. Trust me, I'm trying to unwind a nested cesspool of tables used on an old form into something mildly better using Bootstrap, just because printers can deal with it so much better.
-
Tables are EVIL INCARNATE when they're being used for page layout, especially when no planning has been done to consider printing a page full of tables nested in tables when that's one of the unstated (because it was elephant-ing obvious) requirements. Trust me, I'm trying to unwind a nested cesspool of tables used on an old form into something mildly better using Bootstrap, just because printers can deal with it so much better.
Yeah, there's no excuse for using tables for layout these days. But there was a time when there was no good alternative, so we're still dealing with that legacy. Nowadays people are abusing CSS, which deserves it due to its broken inheritance model. When browsers are forced to implement something like "!important," which should never ever be used because it "breaks" inheritance, then you know that there's something fundamentally wrong with the inheritance model in the first place...but that's a whole other rant. I do find it hysterical that "!important" reads as "not important" to people who know logic :)
