what do you think CP web site
-
Thomas George wrote:
Chris and co has a lot of work on their hands, other than taking on such a frivulous activity.
And creating Bob wasn't frivolous? I like Bob, but really, when will people stop being so damned one-sided.
Thomas George wrote:
The site is already modern in technology.
Not really. The ASP rewite has been in the works for years. Oh sure, we all make excuses for it, be we all know it's long overdue. Shog and crew will keep on using the same excuse for the next 10 years. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Shog and crew will keep on using the same excuse for the next 10 years.
:~ I'm not sure where to take offense - the implication that there's something i need an excuse for, or the assertion that i'm not creative enough to come up with fresh ones every few years... :rolleyes: As Nish mentioned, any involvement i have with CP is as a user, and in my spare time. I've nothing to do with the ASP.NET re-write.
----
-
Shog9 wrote:
One-stop shopping for all your coding needs, with a slick, professional interface.
If you're talking about CodeGuru, it was nothing close to that - ever. Jeremy Falcon
Gee, that was supposed to be vague and allegorical... :rolleyes: Yeah, CG kinda just went from simple to overdone. I found it just after Earthweb bought it, while struggling to figure out the new menus on another Earthweb site (something to do with Java, i think... it's been a while). But this isn't exactly unique to CG. Thinking back to the sites i visited most often 6-8 years ago, most of them are gone now, long ago either absorbed by some sort of portal site, or crushed under the weight of their own UI. Gaming sites seem to have been especially vulnerable to this for some reason. There are designs that must look really great in mock-up screenshots, but just infuriate me when i'm trying to use them in a less-than-fullscreen browser over a slow (less than 6Mbps) connection. As much as i detest the HTML that CP generates for layout, it's far from the worst i've seen, and on sites that really ought to know better.
----
-
Gee, that was supposed to be vague and allegorical... :rolleyes: Yeah, CG kinda just went from simple to overdone. I found it just after Earthweb bought it, while struggling to figure out the new menus on another Earthweb site (something to do with Java, i think... it's been a while). But this isn't exactly unique to CG. Thinking back to the sites i visited most often 6-8 years ago, most of them are gone now, long ago either absorbed by some sort of portal site, or crushed under the weight of their own UI. Gaming sites seem to have been especially vulnerable to this for some reason. There are designs that must look really great in mock-up screenshots, but just infuriate me when i'm trying to use them in a less-than-fullscreen browser over a slow (less than 6Mbps) connection. As much as i detest the HTML that CP generates for layout, it's far from the worst i've seen, and on sites that really ought to know better.
----
Shog9 wrote:
Gee, that was supposed to be vague and allegorical...
:-D
Shog9 wrote:
Yeah, CG kinda just went from simple to overdone.
I found that it's structure went from bad to worse. I had zero problem switching over to CP when it first came out.
Shog9 wrote:
Thinking back to the sites i visited most often 6-8 years ago, most of them are gone now, long ago either absorbed by some sort of portal site, or crushed under the weight of their own UI.
Yeah, your right. I don't know if people get lazy, think the original structure will always work or what.
Shog9 wrote:
There are designs that must look really great in mock-up screenshots, but just infuriate me when i'm trying to use them in a less-than-fullscreen browser over a slow (less than 6Mbps) connection.
Yeah, but to me that's not modern, that's stupid. Probably some 10 year old who looked up a Photoshop tutorial and used frontpage. :laugh:
Shog9 wrote:
As much as i detest the HTML that CP generates for layout, it's far from the worst i've seen, and on sites that really ought to know better.
I agree 150%. I just think this guy got treated really unfairly by most replies, just because he said CP needs to be more modern. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't have make little green aliens to brand build. The point is, you're justifying what you agree with and diss what you don't.
Maybe. But, I think that the "little green alien" is a logo, not a site layout feature. Every product needs one -- because it gives instant recognition. You see someone walking on the street with a "Bob" printed on his T shirt -- and you recognize it.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Services have little to do with the look and feel
There is only a certain amount of resources that one has. Is look and feel a priority, or the bugs a priority? I feel that bugs are the priority. If CP ignores that and spends time on layout modification, I consider that bad management.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you said CP is using the moderm technologies already when it isn't.
So, you mean to say that .NET is modern, but ASP is not. Maybe, but that is subjective. Rewriting the whole software because Microsoft released .NET is a worthwhile exercise.
Thomas George wrote:
Maybe. But, I think that the "little green alien" is a logo, not a site layout feature.
Well, ok, then why have two ways to get to the soapbox that's right next to one another? All I'm asking is to be fair.
Thomas George wrote:
Is look and feel a priority, or the bugs a priority?
I think the bugs aren't a priority at all. I think the priority is playing around with the servers all the time. Granted, it's not like I'm there, this is just what I perceived.
Thomas George wrote:
Maybe, but that is subjective.
Yes it is.
Thomas George wrote:
Rewriting the whole software because Microsoft released .NET is a worthwhile exercise.
Except even Chris himeslf thinks .NET is better by leaps and bounds, and it's been years since it was released. And as someone who can make a website like CP, I can tell you it doesn't take years for a complete rewite - even with one person working on it. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Chris is busy, etc. and I'm not knocking CP as so much as saying it's not without its issues that could use improving. Most people just refuse to accept that somehow. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Shog and crew will keep on using the same excuse for the next 10 years.
:~ I'm not sure where to take offense - the implication that there's something i need an excuse for, or the assertion that i'm not creative enough to come up with fresh ones every few years... :rolleyes: As Nish mentioned, any involvement i have with CP is as a user, and in my spare time. I've nothing to do with the ASP.NET re-write.
----
Shog9 wrote:
I'm not sure where to take offense
Don't. When I think of web stuff I think of people like you, Paul, and myself, that plus I've seen you make that excuse before. If your name pops up in my head and I didn't flat out call you an asshole, consider that a compliment. :) I usually don't hold much back.
Shog9 wrote:
the implication that there's something i need an excuse for, or the assertion that i'm not creative enough to come up with fresh ones every few years...
:laugh: Well, 10 years is a bit of a stretch. Don't take everything I say litteraly, it'll drive you nuts. Really though, all I ever hear is it takes a long time to rewrite a site. But it's been years already. You and I both know it could've been done by now, easily.
Shog9 wrote:
I've nothing to do with the ASP.NET re-write.
I never said you did. Or at least I didn't mean to imply that. Jeremy Falcon
-
Shog9 wrote:
Gee, that was supposed to be vague and allegorical...
:-D
Shog9 wrote:
Yeah, CG kinda just went from simple to overdone.
I found that it's structure went from bad to worse. I had zero problem switching over to CP when it first came out.
Shog9 wrote:
Thinking back to the sites i visited most often 6-8 years ago, most of them are gone now, long ago either absorbed by some sort of portal site, or crushed under the weight of their own UI.
Yeah, your right. I don't know if people get lazy, think the original structure will always work or what.
Shog9 wrote:
There are designs that must look really great in mock-up screenshots, but just infuriate me when i'm trying to use them in a less-than-fullscreen browser over a slow (less than 6Mbps) connection.
Yeah, but to me that's not modern, that's stupid. Probably some 10 year old who looked up a Photoshop tutorial and used frontpage. :laugh:
Shog9 wrote:
As much as i detest the HTML that CP generates for layout, it's far from the worst i've seen, and on sites that really ought to know better.
I agree 150%. I just think this guy got treated really unfairly by most replies, just because he said CP needs to be more modern. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I just think this guy got treated really unfairly by most replies, just because he said CP needs to be more modern.
Yeah, a lot of knee-jerking going on. But in a way, he set himself up for it. Whatever "modern" means, it seems to change every few months. A site dedicated to web design like AListApart pretty much ends up stuck on a treadmill, forever changing layout and colors to try and stay on the cusp of what's deemed elegant and cool (and of course the same thing afflicts desktop apps - how many articles do we have here detailing schemes to make your app look like the latest version of Word...). The OP would likely have had a better response if he'd detailed specific things that bothered him, and how they could be made to work better (then again, maybe not. If your attitude towards a website is that it should look and act like a game, you might just find an argument no matter what you suggest.)
----
-
Shog9 wrote:
I'm not sure where to take offense
Don't. When I think of web stuff I think of people like you, Paul, and myself, that plus I've seen you make that excuse before. If your name pops up in my head and I didn't flat out call you an asshole, consider that a compliment. :) I usually don't hold much back.
Shog9 wrote:
the implication that there's something i need an excuse for, or the assertion that i'm not creative enough to come up with fresh ones every few years...
:laugh: Well, 10 years is a bit of a stretch. Don't take everything I say litteraly, it'll drive you nuts. Really though, all I ever hear is it takes a long time to rewrite a site. But it's been years already. You and I both know it could've been done by now, easily.
Shog9 wrote:
I've nothing to do with the ASP.NET re-write.
I never said you did. Or at least I didn't mean to imply that. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Really though, all I ever hear is it takes a long time to rewrite a site. But it's been years already. You and I both know it could've been done by now, easily.
Quite likely. IMHO, this is one of the biggest problems of the otherwise-appealing Great Rewrite. You end up wasting so much time on things that already exist and work in your existing design, you never get to the major fixes and enhancements that originally motivated the rewrite. And meanwhile, you still need to maintain the existing code...
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
plus I've seen you make that excuse before.
Eh, probably. :-O I'll go with "Code Gnomes" next time...
----
-
Thomas George wrote:
Maybe. But, I think that the "little green alien" is a logo, not a site layout feature.
Well, ok, then why have two ways to get to the soapbox that's right next to one another? All I'm asking is to be fair.
Thomas George wrote:
Is look and feel a priority, or the bugs a priority?
I think the bugs aren't a priority at all. I think the priority is playing around with the servers all the time. Granted, it's not like I'm there, this is just what I perceived.
Thomas George wrote:
Maybe, but that is subjective.
Yes it is.
Thomas George wrote:
Rewriting the whole software because Microsoft released .NET is a worthwhile exercise.
Except even Chris himeslf thinks .NET is better by leaps and bounds, and it's been years since it was released. And as someone who can make a website like CP, I can tell you it doesn't take years for a complete rewite - even with one person working on it. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure Chris is busy, etc. and I'm not knocking CP as so much as saying it's not without its issues that could use improving. Most people just refuse to accept that somehow. Jeremy Falcon
-
Um. I think you'll find you are in a minority with your view.
ppatel567 wrote:
I feel CP administrators should use all the knowledge in codeproject to build a very ultra modern website.
Well in my opinion, they've already succeeded. CP is the best web-site that I use, whilst there are some known problems such as searching. Everything else is easy to find and within easy reach.
ppatel567 wrote:
Though its more homely and friendly, Sometimes I see many child like images.
And that is what gives CP it's character. It has heart and soul. Where you see child-like, I see a site where a lot of love and attention has been put in to make CP a welcoming place, where you know the CP team is doing this because they love it, not because it is a job. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
The only thing I don't like is the message system. Other than that, it's fine the way it is. ------- 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
-
You've not even been here long enough to learn about clicketies! And you want to change everything! GET A GRIP! http://www.2advanced.com[^] Sorry, I had to wait more than 10 seconds for any content one the page loaded! That sucks! Also, it stopped the tabs working in FireFox. Nobody, but nobody, fucks with my browser! I have it set to the way I like working. http://www.thevoid.co.uk[^] I've waited over 30 seconds and still no contect. Double Sucks! http://www.nike.com[^] Nike is for a consumer market not for developers. I don't want to have to deal with all those whizzy graphics. I just want to get my job done! It even asked me what language TWICE! Couldn't it remember the first time. That sucks http://www.secondstory.com/[^] This is an online brochure. In fact, all these are online brochures. They don't have the same purpose as Code Project. http://www.thefwa.com/[^] A set of awards for unusable whizzy websites! Get a grip! http://www.cabedge.com/[^] Yet another low interactivite design site brochure. Yawn! http://www.realityslip.com/[^] How many online brochures are you going to give us? And why do so many have music! I don't want their music. I want MY music. I wouldn't use Code Project if it had music!
Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote:
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Jörgen Sigvardsson , on the subject of Wikipedia, wrote:
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least you have the chance to correct the wiki.
