web development takes too long
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Quote:
is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
Nup All web dev sucks. Always has and probably always will do.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
could be either really cool or really awful.
I haven't tried making a stand-alone web app: what do you think the down-sides could be ... other than the complexity of programming to Angular ? Andrej keeps encouraging me to "get into" Angular, and I have great respect for him: I still use his fantastic WinForm controls.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
Angular lost me years ago when they promised a new major version every 6 months.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
They don't pay you because it is fun or easy... They pay you because that is the only way they can get you to do it. :sigh:
I hate web development. That's why I don't do it.
-
They don't pay you because it is fun or easy... They pay you because that is the only way they can get you to do it. :sigh:
I hate web development. That's why I don't do it.
I don't get paid for web dev. I only do it to make demos for libs i write. but i still hate it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Stick to Basics - no (so called) helper frameworks HTML5/CSS3/javaScript/php - and then roll your own. Naturally, like any programming, there's an induction period where you get used to the idea of how to do things and the comparative uniqueness of the isolation of the client from the server and statelessness. But it all becomes familiar. And you maintain control. For myself - I don't give a damn about the conventional wisdom of the layout. I want all the components on the page to work exactly as I wish them to (along with the server). Design - well, they could hire a web designer. I'll keep it clean and, in particular, a very small set of interfaces for my users (familiarity breeds contentment). I go for eye-friendly, and, since these are for office workers to stare at all day, kind to the eyes based on colors/contrasts/font-sizes. If an extension is added (really, 'when' an extension is added) is must not interfere with existing code and design. They must embrace or ignore one another - no half-assed measures or you'll pay down the line. Also, never use the latest-and-greatest extension to (HTML/CSS) as you then have browser incompatibility(s) or even worse, you handle it, fork you design, crash, and burn. Remember - you are working concurrently with three-to-five languages per page (if you count SQL). It's not like the happy place in your C++ environment - everything made to a single monolithic paradigm. And you need to redesign there, too. Thereby set up a stable world and the problems all but disappear.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Stick to Basics - no (so called) helper frameworks HTML5/CSS3/javaScript/php - and then roll your own. Naturally, like any programming, there's an induction period where you get used to the idea of how to do things and the comparative uniqueness of the isolation of the client from the server and statelessness. But it all becomes familiar. And you maintain control. For myself - I don't give a damn about the conventional wisdom of the layout. I want all the components on the page to work exactly as I wish them to (along with the server). Design - well, they could hire a web designer. I'll keep it clean and, in particular, a very small set of interfaces for my users (familiarity breeds contentment). I go for eye-friendly, and, since these are for office workers to stare at all day, kind to the eyes based on colors/contrasts/font-sizes. If an extension is added (really, 'when' an extension is added) is must not interfere with existing code and design. They must embrace or ignore one another - no half-assed measures or you'll pay down the line. Also, never use the latest-and-greatest extension to (HTML/CSS) as you then have browser incompatibility(s) or even worse, you handle it, fork you design, crash, and burn. Remember - you are working concurrently with three-to-five languages per page (if you count SQL). It's not like the happy place in your C++ environment - everything made to a single monolithic paradigm. And you need to redesign there, too. Thereby set up a stable world and the problems all but disappear.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
I want all the components on the page to work exactly as I wish them to
That's the problem, especially with CSS. And I roll my own stuff a lot of times, except these days I do use jquery precisely because it eliminates some of the inconsistencies of "DHTML", especially taking multiple browsers into account. Less stress. Still, it's mostly CSS that sticks in my craw. It's just so freakin arcane. Even I get the concepts enough that I could roll my own basic CSS engine, things like lack of a hard "height" feature, clearfix problems, and just the layout quirks - it's a damned mess. I know one person that can navigate that mud and make it seem easy, and if I wasn't a better person I'd hate them for it :laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
I had really good luck with combining B.E.M[^], a css preprocessor, and something like patternlab[^] to develop the front end independently of the back end. That lets you develop the front end without the nasty css cascades, and by using components with mock data and multiple states.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
-
I had really good luck with combining B.E.M[^], a css preprocessor, and something like patternlab[^] to develop the front end independently of the back end. That lets you develop the front end without the nasty css cascades, and by using components with mock data and multiple states.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
God bless JSON and JSONP these days I don't have a problem separating front and backend. Through talking about it on this thread I've come to realize it's mostly CSS I hate. And it's because its layout engine is just awful.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
I want all the components on the page to work exactly as I wish them to
That's the problem, especially with CSS. And I roll my own stuff a lot of times, except these days I do use jquery precisely because it eliminates some of the inconsistencies of "DHTML", especially taking multiple browsers into account. Less stress. Still, it's mostly CSS that sticks in my craw. It's just so freakin arcane. Even I get the concepts enough that I could roll my own basic CSS engine, things like lack of a hard "height" feature, clearfix problems, and just the layout quirks - it's a damned mess. I know one person that can navigate that mud and make it seem easy, and if I wasn't a better person I'd hate them for it :laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
honey the codewitch wrote:
I know one person that can navigate that mud and make it seem easy,
So - you have supplied apriori proof that it can be done if you know what you're doing - really like any other programming languages. Now - there's no need for you to specialize for a now-and-then pain. I came to my current job for my C++ - but am now 'the' web programmer. What I have found, as a self criticism, is that I usually know how to get the page to appear as I wish - but don't want to make the effort. Between sending you my first mail in this series and your reply I worked on a modification. It didn't work out and I commented it out, for now. I do know the solution (in programming, I guess it's always properly written as "a solution", not "the solution") but I have neither the urge nor the time, right now, to go there. Really easy: make a two-column table into three so I can right-justify a like (whose class makes it look like a button) on the far right of a <th> element and combine all the lower rows to mimic the original two-column behavior with a column span, along with using <td>, instead, and gain back some control. Or whatever floats by when I open the page again. All of the above formatting is from AJAX (php). Right now, I just don't feel like it. So, instead of putting in the effort it got " // ".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
I know one person that can navigate that mud and make it seem easy,
So - you have supplied apriori proof that it can be done if you know what you're doing - really like any other programming languages. Now - there's no need for you to specialize for a now-and-then pain. I came to my current job for my C++ - but am now 'the' web programmer. What I have found, as a self criticism, is that I usually know how to get the page to appear as I wish - but don't want to make the effort. Between sending you my first mail in this series and your reply I worked on a modification. It didn't work out and I commented it out, for now. I do know the solution (in programming, I guess it's always properly written as "a solution", not "the solution") but I have neither the urge nor the time, right now, to go there. Really easy: make a two-column table into three so I can right-justify a like (whose class makes it look like a button) on the far right of a <th> element and combine all the lower rows to mimic the original two-column behavior with a column span, along with using <td>, instead, and gain back some control. Or whatever floats by when I open the page again. All of the above formatting is from AJAX (php). Right now, I just don't feel like it. So, instead of putting in the effort it got " // ".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Tables are easy and honestly if I didn't sort of hate myself for relying on them I'd just stick with them.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Tables are easy and honestly if I didn't sort of hate myself for relying on them I'd just stick with them.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
honey the codewitch wrote:
if I didn't sort of hate myself for relying on them I'd just stick with them.
I never understood this anti-table nonesense. They work and make many things very much easier (and readable ! ! ! !). Someone got a burr up their ass and decided to denigrate them. Why should I care what they think? And by proxy, why should you care? Wait for them to offer to do your work for you. (by the way - if life were all tables we'd not have this thread).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
if I didn't sort of hate myself for relying on them I'd just stick with them.
I never understood this anti-table nonesense. They work and make many things very much easier (and readable ! ! ! !). Someone got a burr up their ass and decided to denigrate them. Why should I care what they think? And by proxy, why should you care? Wait for them to offer to do your work for you. (by the way - if life were all tables we'd not have this thread).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
One of the rationales is it combines layout and structure, whereas if you avoid them in favor of CSS tables and such you can better "skin" your site using CSS. However, no matter what you do in the real world with HTML and CSS there's going to be intermingling of structure and layout. Another rationale, and this one is compelling: lack of fluidity in layout which means entirely separate content for mobile, which means more work. So I don't know. I'm ambivalent about tables due to the second thing.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
One of the rationales is it combines layout and structure, whereas if you avoid them in favor of CSS tables and such you can better "skin" your site using CSS. However, no matter what you do in the real world with HTML and CSS there's going to be intermingling of structure and layout. Another rationale, and this one is compelling: lack of fluidity in layout which means entirely separate content for mobile, which means more work. So I don't know. I'm ambivalent about tables due to the second thing.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
honey the codewitch wrote:
entirely separate content for mobile,
Mobile? We don't do no stinkin' mobile! I create software for grownups earning their living. And a fraternal district full of users on an informational site. So far, no complaints from a single phone-addicted user although Google analytics puts them at ca. 40% share. You have made my LG flip-phone weep.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
entirely separate content for mobile,
Mobile? We don't do no stinkin' mobile! I create software for grownups earning their living. And a fraternal district full of users on an informational site. So far, no complaints from a single phone-addicted user although Google analytics puts them at ca. 40% share. You have made my LG flip-phone weep.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
well for certain things mobile is desirable, even for work. I worked at a little dev house in the early aughts that adopted mobile early to create apps for mobile a salesforce and mobile technicians. It was pretty lucrative, and shockingly practical.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Wow, I just had a flashback to PWS and the little merlin looking character! :laugh: Fun times!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
you're probably right about the javascript, as I've had better luck sanitizing, or rather "sanifying" my code using say, jquery than i have using CSS 3 - the layout issues still plague me. There's so many corner cases
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
There's so many corner cases
True, but at least we now have
border-radius... remember when we had to position tags over the corners to get rounded borders? ;-):laugh: that's not quite what i meant
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Well ... there is Blazor: Blazor | Build client web apps with C# | .NET[^] - which should get rid of >50% of the actual suckery: Javascript. It still uses HTML and CSS though :sigh: I haven't tried it - I learned many years ago that anything microsoft count as "before RTM" (or even "before SP1") is realistically called "beta" - but it does look very interesting.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Blazor is indeed very interesting. If it was launched before I had to learn javascript I would probably never learn it. But I kinda like it now (javascript) it is messy in a beautifull way :-D
-
it always comes down to trial and error. make a thing, try a thing, go back and *remake* the thing because DHTML and CSS are funny in a sad kind of way - like an old married couple that hates each other but won't divorce. is there a better way to do it? I mean other than schlepping it off onto someone else, which is my first choice. :laugh: is there some magic to web development that makes it not suck?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
HTML/CSS/JavaScript has long been a black hole for programming and debugging time. Those technologies were never intended to do what is asked of them today. My advice is to focus on WebAssembly (in the Microsoft world, that is Blazor). HTML and C# is all that is needed. The temptation for web developers is to fall back on JavaScript (via JS Interop in Blazor) instead of learning how things are done in Blazor (HTML and C#).
