|
A little background...
My wife runs a medical billing business, and the primary software she uses to do her work is the web-based application of some service provider whose name I can't remember at the moment.
Anyway, yesterday the software was producing all sorts of errors, causing much grief to my wife, which in turn was distracting me from my all-important game of SpaceBlaster.io (shameless plug!). So I thought to look at her JavaScript console and network activity, to see if the problem was on the client side or on server side.
Still awake? Good! Here comes the interesting part.
Here I am, poking around in Firefox, snooping at this application's HTML code, and what do I find? An <applet> tag! My wife, being a bit startled by my intense GASP, asked what was wrong. I mentioned that "these guys" are still using Java Applets, which as far as I know are not supported anymore by anyone. She acknowledged this and immediately responded that the new version, which is in beta, does not use Java at all, and proceeded to load the new version up in her browser.
I immediately start "inspecting" the code, and sure enough, the Java Applet is gone. However, I also noticed that a bunch of the JavaScript files had names containing the word "faces" in them. So I'm thinking "Java Server Faces???". Nobody's talked about that stuff for years that I know of. Anyway, it kind of boggled my mind that someone is still using this stuff, and would upgrade from one ancient technology to a less ancient technology 
Any of you guys still coding JSF or Applets? If not, when was the last time you've come across either in your work?
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
TonyManso wrote: Any of you guys still coding JSF or Applets? If not, when was the last time you've come across either in your work?
Any reply would not do justice to what my brain kept reading as "Java Server Feces" so maybe that's an answer in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a case of "May the Feces be with you" then...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
TonyManso wrote: Nobody's talked about that stuff for years that I know of
I saw a new job posting in the past week where they were looking for a RPG programmer. No other programming languages listed.
TonyManso wrote: Any of you guys still coding JSF or Applets?
I am under the impression that browsers do not support Java at all. FireFox does not.
|
|
|
|
|
RPG.. one of the languages I've managed to completely forget....
In college, we had to learn: VAX BASIC, VAX Assembler, Pascal, RPG and COBOL.
I can probably manage all of them now, except for RPG.. I'm good with that!
Since college, I've had to learn Fortran and C for work.. so the background has served me well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that is true for latest version. It must be explicitly turned on via a security exception, but perhaps that is what you mean.
In contrast Edge, the windows 10 browser, does not appear to support Java.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I mean.
Edge has never supported any legacy plugins except flash.
Chrome and Firefox both removed support for all legacy plugins other than flash a year or two ago.
IE is the only major browser still receiving security updates to support them.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: That's exactly what I mean.
Ok, I understand now. Rereading you first post, I believe I misread it - it certainly seems clearer now.
|
|
|
|
|
I was recently approached by a company that wanted a java developer. I like to think they were not talking applets. It's academic anyway as I turned it down.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
My Saturday job requires using a web application that still uses good old Classic ASP...and it only works correctly in IE Compatibility Mode! They've been harping about an update for at least 5 years...not holding my breath.
At work, I'm migrating the last couple of Classic ASP sites I have left in preparation for a new server where I'd like avoid legacy issues. We also still use Flash for a dashboard in one of our web applications, though the horrible tool  that was used to create it did not make the cut a few years back when I upgraded workstations.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: good old Classic ASP...and it only works correctly in IE Compatibility Mode!
You poor soul!!! Well then, JSF is not seeming so bad after all 
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you're working for the VA. 
|
|
|
|
|
Once I had to update my business address and the process was to use the CD that came when I register business number and that loads applet in the browser and that suppose to allow you to update your address. I could not for life of me get it to work. In this day and age this is the process to update business address. After wasting hours I gave up. So yes there are dark places out there that still uses this thing.
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Maths is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow 
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so sorry to hear that, but remember that tomorrow is another day. Don't let it ruin your entire day.
|
|
|
|
|
Client[] clients = Enumerable.Repeat(new Client(), 10).ToArray();
Hey Marc, why are all the client names the same as the last one???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worse than that, this problem would most likely not have occurred when using for loops, since the most natural way to write it is the correct way.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: since the most natural way to write it is the correct way. |
Hmmm. Writing:
Client[] clients = new Client[10];
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
clients[i]=new Client();
}
Is painful to look at IMO.
Client[] clients = CreateArrayOf(()=>new Client(), 10);
or:
Client[] clients = CreateArrayOf<Client>(10);
or even:
Client[] clients = 10.CreateArrayOf<Client>();
is a lot better, IMO.
Then again:
Client[] clients = CreateClients(10);
would have at least hidden any ugly for loop.
|
|
|
|
|
All options good.. except for the hard-coded '10'; really dislike hard-coding any values.
|
|
|
|
|
The 10 was just to make the example simpler
|
|
|
|
|
Understood... but I see FAR too many examples where it isn't to 'make the example simpler', rather, it's the actual code.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: rather, it's the actual code.
Yeah, I've seen that, written that kind of stuff too.  In this case, "10" is the actually some number of child nodes in an XML path, which is validated elsewhere for correctness.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised that one's even legal C#. It looks like the sort of dumpsterfire you'd see in frufru bogotyped scripting languages.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
