|
Listening music and looking at movie works good enough with radio and TV, no need for internet, it is only good for nerds 
|
|
|
|
|
if these throw-backs keep listening only to their core constituency (fat wallets with a short term view of filling the wallets even more) - then they will break our wonderful toy.
It's that's simple.
P.S. I hope Google moves all of it's offices and employment out of Europe - (vide infra).
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
"You must use Windows XP since that's what we've been using for the past 10 years at this company!"
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU..........
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
"Regulators who actually understand the technology"
That will be somewhere after AI, so the technology can explain itself....
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: Give us some credit
Republic credits or Cubits?
|
|
|
|
|
True freedom does not exist in any society when any/every move communication, etc. can/may be tracked. monitored or scrutinized.
-- Martin Goff
mlgoff_59@yahoo.com
KK4EBS
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm no joke icon
Martin Goff wrote: True freedom does not exist in any society when any/every move communication, etc. can/may be tracked. monitored or scrutinized.
Well that's easy, we just have to go back to 1930 or something then 
|
|
|
|
|
They said think BIG. I want the tools/tech to obfuscate myself in all of the tracking systems. Personally controlled/selective anonymity is freedom.
-- Martin Goff
mlgoff_59@yahoo.com
KK4EBS
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I'd really like to see the web reengineered. HTML+CSS+JS is a truly horrible combination.
Viewing the browser as a platform, its hard to envisage many worse things to choose as the basic building blocks.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree - there is no good reason for using a "human readable" communications medium between browser and client any more.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: HTML+CSS+JS is a truly horrible combination.
5++++++
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Seem to have hit a nerve with this one judging by responses.
(PS. Started looking at the Succinctly book, but have had to put it on hold - I'll come back to it when I'm sufficiently "bedded in" with Haskell to not find trying to learn two functional languages confusing).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
 +5
|
|
|
|
|
+5 also
Thinking about intermediate language like Xamarin is doing with C# and mobile devices
|
|
|
|
|
The statement of the century.
So much hassle and countless frameworks because we are bound to html and js...
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: HTML+CSS+JS is a truly horrible combination
plus incompatible browsers with versions, OS, Too many JS frameworks ...
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, instead of reengineering, there are already desktop apps that run with HTML+CSS+JS. HTML+CSS can be powerful and look good. I don't know similar framework for C++, C# that has the advantages of HTML+CSS and that is also cross platform.
This platform should be binary instead of textual. And I also think it's a bad idea that HTML and CSS is glued to JS, it should be language independent. It doesn't even need to be web browser only.
|
|
|
|
|
It can be powerful, and it can look good, but it should all be so much easier.
The CSS box model is an horrible thing that seemed to ignore all the good lessons of previous layout technologies, much as HTML and JS ignored all the lessons from previous hypertext systems and programming languages (OK, JS does have some nice features, but the overall combination is fugly).
I find it abhorrent that HTML+CSS is making its way to the desktop, rather than better technologies making their way to the browser. If this trend continues, I may have to give up any attempts at UI programming, which is a shame as that's one of the things that initially attracted me to computing.
(Edited to avoid repetition)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm beginner at web development, and the js dynamic typing thing annoys me. I think dynamic typing doesn't work well for bigger programs, but for smaller ones it doesn't worth learning. It is much harder to learn than a statically typed language. You need to constantly check the documentation for the types.
Can you explain the disadvanage of box model, or could you give a link?
|
|
|
|
|
You're mostly right with respect to dynamic typing, but your JavaScript experience may not be enough to form a fair judgement - the first true OOP language, Smalltalk, used dynamic typing and came with a class browser that simplified finding the members you're looking for - categories group related properties. In these environments, you're actually working within a running program that you can inspect, edit and recompile parts of at runtime. The whole experience was decades ahead of its time.
The same group also invented the modern UI :- Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers (WIMP) - so the Smalltalk environment was in many ways the first true GUI.
However, many developers prefer static typing. Feature like Intellisense are easier to engineer for such languages (although its an IDE issue if JavaScript fails at this, but the poor language design certainly complicates things), but the real advantage is that errors are detected earlier - for many kinds of errors, they can be detected before any attempt is made to run the program.
There are large groups in each camp. Funnily, the dynamic camp is often preferred for the speed and ease of development (no Compile/Link cycle), but your experience illustrates that some static languages fair much better.
But please don't think that JavaScript exemplifies the dynamic way. It is widely regarded as having a large number of mistakes in its design (such as implicit declaration of globals for undeclared variables).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I missed the opportunity to rant about CSS there.
CSS was originally envisaged as a way to style elements in a HTML document: the font properties, alignment etc. of titles, blocks of text, etc.
Later, it was extended (bodged) to support layout.
Now, in Graphic Design, typically a designer looks at the page/screen/surface as a grid, and designs a layout in terms of that grid. CSS uses a model that is fundamentally based on a vertical stack of elements, with even worse support for elements that don't stack in this way well. Over time, features have been added either by CSS itself or pre-processors that add support for other types of layout to CSS, but it actually makes best practise in graphic design hard when laying out web pages.
The box model in CSS complicates things. The width of an element, as specified, extended by padding, border and margin in layout. This complicates using a grid layout, as you'll have to do some arithmetic to ensure things get laid out in a regular manner. CSS3 introduced a box-sizing property can alleviate this, but its just a shame the "normal" way of working makes best practice harder.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it's understandable if something is hard to design with it. The hardest is probably a desktop app. WPF has built-in grids.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe in combination with mind meld so we never have to type again.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Clemmer wrote: Maybe in combination with mind meld so we never have to type again.
Well, almost (shameless plug) watch the video.[^] 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, here is another shameless plug (video)[^].
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
