|
Truly amazing book. About up to chapter 3, reading very, very slowly. As Sir John wants us to, I suspect.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like I'm really "getting" web development finally. Knockout is awesome (and yes, I know somewhat old tech, but it does exactly what I need without extra baggage) and I'm about to look into SignalR / WebSockets.
What I don't get is, why isn't the web experience so much smoother? With capabilities like Ajax and WebSockets, I would expect really rich, dynamic, realtime, fluid websites. Why are websites still so klunky, so "here's some static content to render"?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
1. Because you end up having to code to the lowest common denominator
2. Because every day a new framework comes out so there's a lot of indecision on which one a developer should pursue. GOTO 1.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Beside that, he doesn't like MVC
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
Wonde Tadesse wrote: he doesn't like MVC
Only because it reminds him that his middle name is "Veronica". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Only because it reminds him that his middle name is "Veronica"
 And here I thought it was "Vexatious"
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Wonde Tadesse wrote: Beside that, he doesn't like MVC
It's not so much that I don't like MVC, rather than I don't like how frameworks like Razor inflict their idea of MVC on you, including things like Entity Framework  and the Razor view engine (another )
I know these can be "replaced", but if you look at the architecture of something like NancyFx, the ORM and view engine are supplied as components not half-baked-in implementation.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 1. Because you end up having to code to the lowest common denominator
In terms of browser support, or developer capabilities? Or both?
(BTW, last time I checked, the Post Message and other red buttons don't show up in Chrome)
Chris Maunder wrote: 2. Because every day a new framework comes out so there's a lot of indecision on which one a developer should pursue.
I was in that boat and finally decided to take the approach that I would choose the most lightweight framework to get the job done that also looks like it has a decent following / recommendation.
So far, I've limited my "stack" to:
jQuery
Bootstrap
jqWidgets
knockout
Next is SignalR.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We've been playing with knockout, ember and now angular. We'll probably stick to angular purely because of the amount of work and support being put into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We'll probably stick to angular purely because of the amount of work and support being put into it.
That makes sense. Given that I was starting a completely new project, I opted out regarding Angular because the next version apparently is going to be completely different with no migration from the old one, so it seemed best to wait.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Why are websites still so klunky
Because it's still based on Swiss engineering from the 80s? :shrug:
(No facts were checked in the production of this snarky comment.)
|
|
|
|
|
he he he, it is based on swiss army knife 
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Because it's still based on Swiss engineering from the 80s?
A very nice subtle reference to CERN and creation of HTML by Tim Berners-Lee. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to Chris' comment, the fact that you're using a data binding framework, and are starting to get into push frameworks, already places you above the curve in web developer competence.
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: already places you above the curve in web developer competence.
That's so weird, because I've felt so behind the curve in web development, and frankly, still do. Like, struggling with div positioning, bootstrap grids, getting things to look nice on a phone / tablet, etc.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Why are websites still so klunky
Same reasons desktop apps fail and are still clunky.
How many UI's are tested in both the Aero and non-earo surrounding? With 125% font size and a high-contrast scheme? The desktop supports that for a few years now, but it is cheaper to ignore all that funky sh*t.
Part of it is budget, part is education, and for a part we simply cannot be bothered.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
All of this new HTML 5 goodness has only been out for a couple years. It just takes time to propagate the entire planet. I was lucky in that I was starting a brand new project to get to play with it, but some people still have to maintain apps developed years ago. Just life man. Hell, some people still use VB6.
On a side note, I haven't used Knockout JS that much yet, but it's on my to-do list. After a couple years of Silverlight it appeals to me. Just brushing up my skill on current JavaScript and a UI lib I'm using currently. So one thing at at time.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but some people still have to maintain apps developed years ago. Just life man. Hell, some people still use VB6.
That makes sense, but when I look at a site like LinkedIn, which really hasn't changed much over the years, and I look at how freaking klunky the Group message stuff is, geez, makes you wonder why some really sexy competitor hasn't shown up. I guess part of that is building the customer base, but then it still makes me wonder why LinkedIn hasn't done something to make its site more user friendly.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Necessity is the mother of all invention. People tend to get a bit lazy when they're on the top of the mountain. Why change if we don't need to ya know? I'm sure they'd innovate after a competitor showed up with something new and fancy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Necessity is the mother of all invention.
Cliched adages are the father of all reductio ad absurdum.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Cliched adages are the father of all reductio ad absurdum.
Having no point to a post but to pretend you're on an intellectual high horse is even worse. And to anyone with any life experience, most typical sayings as such have an element of truth. Just like humor. Otherwise they wouldn't be sayings. Now go forth and educate yourself young man and try again.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: With capabilities like Ajax and WebSockets, I would expect really rich, dynamic, realtime, fluid websites. Why are websites still so klunky, so "here's some static content to render"?
Just a guess...because technologies do not solve problems, people do.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Just a guess...because technologies do not solve problems, people do.
That is often the case, but sometimes technologies must be created (yes, by people) so that other people can use those technologies to solve other problems, which were not solvable without the technology. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Content, maybe?
That's what web-sites are for, after all.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
