web development takes too long
-
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#).
-
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#).
webassembly is great but i imagine it's hell on page load times.
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.
1. Don't support Internet Explorer. The only reason it exists anymore is for legacy business web apps and Microsoft has told web devs to stop supporting it in new sites and applications. 2. Invest in a browser screenshot tool like LambdaTest to cut down on your browser testing time. You can run a test and only do detailed testing on the screenshots that don't look right. 3. Use source control like git. This is a general development tip, but many in Web Dev seem to skip stuff like this to save time. It is worth it to be able to have a history of your changes. There are plenty of IDEs like Visual Code Code that integrate with git directly to make this really easy. 4. Use a smart deployment tool like git-ftp. Free for all FTP'ing everything to server will just lead to issues in the long run, especially if you need multiple people pushing changes out to your server. 5. Setup a local web server for development. This cuts all of the time involved pushing your changes out to test them. Their are plenty of AMP packages to pick from (XAMP or MAMP comes to mind) also if you have Windows Pro you can install IIS and install MySQL and PHP natively. You can also use a host file tool to redirect your domain name to your local machine while testing. I prefer HostProfiles for this on Windows (open to other suggestions if anyone knows of a better Windows tool in active development) and Gasmask for this on macOS.
-
: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.
-
webassembly is great but i imagine it's hell on page load times.
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.
Nope. A page may load a little slower the first time, but not really that noticeable. Since webassembly is stateful, not stateless, page operation is actually faster. And loads are minimized to just what is needed. You should try it for yourself. I think you will find that server-side Blazor is quite fast, especially for intranet applications. The improvement in stability and decreased development time more than makes up for a few microseconds of latency or initial page load delay.
-
Nope. A page may load a little slower the first time, but not really that noticeable. Since webassembly is stateful, not stateless, page operation is actually faster. And loads are minimized to just what is needed. You should try it for yourself. I think you will find that server-side Blazor is quite fast, especially for intranet applications. The improvement in stability and decreased development time more than makes up for a few microseconds of latency or initial page load delay.
That's interesting. It must support partial assembly loading to keep page load times down i guess. That's cool, if true. Even loading the entire System.dll into a page is reams of "asm.js"
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 wrote a kids' educational package using that Merlin animated character. Fitted onto 5 floppy disks and was a lot of fun. Written in VB3... happy days. (No, really!)
:thumbsup: Happy days indeed! :) I had been a CS major in the mid '80s but got banned from the computer lab when I refused to give up a terminal to an upperclassman. I quit school and did factory work for 10 years. During that time, I stayed completely away from computers. When I finally went back to school for programming, I was absolutely amazed at how much things had changed! :omg: I bought my first windows machine and copy of Visual Studio 6 in '98. Finally, no more lab! I had my own personal compilers! I had a Personal Web Server! Programming had moved from just procedural to graphical/object/event driven. It was a whole new world and I enjoyed it immensely... so much to learn and create! :) Merlin reminds me of that almost magical feeling of empowerment and freedom when I finally got back in the game. :)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
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? ;-) -
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.
yeah CSS is horrid and overly powerful. I was so happy to work on a project that implemented BEM. After that I saw that it could at least be reigned in. I do mostly server side and backend type work now, not a front end dev anymore.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
-
yeah CSS is horrid and overly powerful. I was so happy to work on a project that implemented BEM. After that I saw that it could at least be reigned in. I do mostly server side and backend type work now, not a front end dev anymore.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
i usually do backend stuff as well, but sometimes front end is unavoidable.
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.
-
1. Don't support Internet Explorer. The only reason it exists anymore is for legacy business web apps and Microsoft has told web devs to stop supporting it in new sites and applications. 2. Invest in a browser screenshot tool like LambdaTest to cut down on your browser testing time. You can run a test and only do detailed testing on the screenshots that don't look right. 3. Use source control like git. This is a general development tip, but many in Web Dev seem to skip stuff like this to save time. It is worth it to be able to have a history of your changes. There are plenty of IDEs like Visual Code Code that integrate with git directly to make this really easy. 4. Use a smart deployment tool like git-ftp. Free for all FTP'ing everything to server will just lead to issues in the long run, especially if you need multiple people pushing changes out to your server. 5. Setup a local web server for development. This cuts all of the time involved pushing your changes out to test them. Their are plenty of AMP packages to pick from (XAMP or MAMP comes to mind) also if you have Windows Pro you can install IIS and install MySQL and PHP natively. You can also use a host file tool to redirect your domain name to your local machine while testing. I prefer HostProfiles for this on Windows (open to other suggestions if anyone knows of a better Windows tool in active development) and Gasmask for this on macOS.
i already do all of that except the php bit. ick. i'm not worried about xamp. And I integrate VS with github. None of that is the issue. Really, CSS is what makes web dev crappy.
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.
One of the solutions is by using RAD controls. There are some controls out there like D*vExpress, T*lerik, etc. They do have some tools to help you with this problem. If you are working with a company that has an R&D team then you can build your own framework to tackle this issue.
-
One of the solutions is by using RAD controls. There are some controls out there like D*vExpress, T*lerik, etc. They do have some tools to help you with this problem. If you are working with a company that has an R&D team then you can build your own framework to tackle this issue.
the tools are never good enough, IME.
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 could probably go back to using tables
Wait, there's another way? :laugh: I don't care what is en vogue, tables rule! :)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Try using nested
page elements that are absolutely positioned, to contain all your content. It works great and you can also make the designs conform automatically to any screen width - see my example at www.philpearl.us/adaptive/.
-
javascript is actually not terrible for me with jquery. a lot of times it's just spacing and overlapping layout crap that CSS does that takes all my time. I could probably go back to using tables and cut my webdev time in half. I think CSS was designed by committee, and that committee actually hates people - like a committee of misanthropes. "Let's take something conceptually easy and make it nearly impossible to use instead, so that we can make people feel bad about themselves" - CSS working group.
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 understand that CSS is not everyone's thing, but I wouldn't call it unusable. I think what frustrates many users is that while it is simple to use in a basic way, it can be difficult to use well. A lot of the burden for organization is on the user, and you do need a strategy and a knowledge of the whole application in order to use it economically. There is something of a craft to it, which I realize is not something everyone feels should be required of them. Because there are so many ways to do the same thing, more important than the immediate CSS rules is the planning and organization. CSS would not be usable if it produced errors, or if the browsers weren't so tolerant of bad CSS. You really do need to take the time and get the basics of specificity and selectors first. Some of the layout concepts can take a while to gel, and you do still need to deal with some browser differences (although it's a lot better now than it used to be). But after a while I began to appreciate how much you can get done with very little code, once you have the hierarchy of styles established for the application, it becomes very predictable. I see a lot of people hate on CSS, but very often specific issues turn out to be known and solvable. I can see why it can be seen as chaotic and unplanned, but I think it's better to think of it as very open-ended, and better to re-adjust expectations on what's needed to use it.
-
i already do all of that except the php bit. ick. i'm not worried about xamp. And I integrate VS with github. None of that is the issue. Really, CSS is what makes web dev crappy.
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.
Google "object oriented CSS". Its a practice of creating reusable css classes and styles that helps eliminate the tediousness of working with CSS. I would also recommend separating your text css and site layout css into separate files that are loaded before your general css file. Having all of the general elements already styled out before doing specific element overrides will help eliminate the amount of CSS you have to write. You could even do this with form element CSS as well. You should also look at using a css reset vs using a css normalize and decide which approach fits your css approach best. I prefer using a reset because of the consistency it provides to the design in the end, but I know a lot of folks prefer using a normalize because there is less general element styling you end up needing in the end.
-
Google "object oriented CSS". Its a practice of creating reusable css classes and styles that helps eliminate the tediousness of working with CSS. I would also recommend separating your text css and site layout css into separate files that are loaded before your general css file. Having all of the general elements already styled out before doing specific element overrides will help eliminate the amount of CSS you have to write. You could even do this with form element CSS as well. You should also look at using a css reset vs using a css normalize and decide which approach fits your css approach best. I prefer using a reset because of the consistency it provides to the design in the end, but I know a lot of folks prefer using a normalize because there is less general element styling you end up needing in the end.
I usually use bootstrap to get to a baseline, but I've used resetters before too.
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.
The zenith of web development ease was reached with ASP.NET's WebForms. Though the internals were constantly being refined, in 2010 ao decision was made somewhere to promote the MVC paradigm of development. Everyone got on the band wagon and the rest is history. The result is the mess of tools, tool kits, JavaScript frameworks, JavaScript, and a lots of other technologies people now have to contend with simply to develop web applications. People should learn to leave well enough alone and stop complaining about every technical idiosyncrasy they come across. WebForms was surely not a perfect environment but to date there has been nothing better to compete with it in terms of ease of use and just getting the job done.... WebForms is still available so maybe it would be a good idea to return to them and drop the rest of the crap that has been promoted in the past 9 years...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.outlook.com
-
The zenith of web development ease was reached with ASP.NET's WebForms. Though the internals were constantly being refined, in 2010 ao decision was made somewhere to promote the MVC paradigm of development. Everyone got on the band wagon and the rest is history. The result is the mess of tools, tool kits, JavaScript frameworks, JavaScript, and a lots of other technologies people now have to contend with simply to develop web applications. People should learn to leave well enough alone and stop complaining about every technical idiosyncrasy they come across. WebForms was surely not a perfect environment but to date there has been nothing better to compete with it in terms of ease of use and just getting the job done.... WebForms is still available so maybe it would be a good idea to return to them and drop the rest of the crap that has been promoted in the past 9 years...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.outlook.com
I tend to agree, but then I've never liked MVC and I find it heavy handed. Usually I just develop UI apps as kind of last mile glue, and all the important stuff is wrapped up in nice class based apis the the UI calls. I don't care about separating content and layout and control in such an environment, although I'll concede that the web with its myriad of devices make it somewhat useful, but it's still a lot of churn to build and maintain. MVC is useful if you're building something like Visual Studio or MS Word. With UIs being glue I just tie whatever i need to work together, factor only as much as I have to, or as much comes naturally, and make my class libraries do all the heavy lifting. No need for MVC. No need for huge UI frameworks. Just give me what i need. WebForms was good at that. Its abstractions were clunky in the beginning sometimes (postback initially not working on all browsers in ASP.NET 1, etc) but they're generally just enough to be useful without being impositional. I really liked it. HTML layout was still a pain. But then CSS is CSS and it's cranky about layouts, especially doing single screen layouts that don't scroll and require fixed heights. I just get frustrated with 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.
