|
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)[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Clemmer wrote: Interesting, here is another shameless plug (video)[^].
Great video! I'm curious -- do you have templates for generating web pages in say, pure ASP.NET or Razor/MVC ?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Great video! I'm curious -- do you have templates for generating web pages in say, pure ASP.NET or Razor/MVC ?
Thanks! I don't have any public web page templates yet, but the membership site modelorientedplus.com [^] is largely developed with templates for Razor/MVC with repository, unit of work, and ioc patterns, all on top of EF code first. I should plan on posting a public version after the holidays, I'm doing a VITA ORM one first.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
You were curious about templates to generate web pages. This article about the VITA ORM and .net application framework includes templates to generate SPAs with the MVC/AngularJS/WebApi/VITA stack:
VITA ORM and .net application framework[^]
Cheers!
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
As in, design, architect, comment their code, write useful tests, etc etc etc.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Dear 11 million CP members (especially those in QA), apply cold water to burnt area... Ouch 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Dear 11 million CP members (especially those in QA), apply cold water to burnt area... Ouch
I speak of those whose code I have to deal with that, quite sadly, never even heard of Code Project. And this is particularly true when it comes to working in Java or Ruby on Rails.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure in which category I fall... If I have to believe my successor my code is awful. Although I just stayed in an hour late to fix a bug he introduced when rewriting my software to 'make it more stable'... (and it was only a 10-15 lines function too!).
But everyone's code is awful according to their successors, such is the nature of programmers 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
My code is awful for the myself of two days later, I'm not sure to want to know what my successor will think of it 
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: As in, design, architect, comment their code, write useful tests, etc etc etc.
Well, now you're just being ridiculous...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: There is a difference between a programmer and a software engineer.
In words yes, but in reality, "software engineer" is equivalent to calling the garbage man a "sanitation engineer."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: while the other also know "why" you do it
Oh, I totally agree. My point was that there are people called "software engineers" that shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer program. The term "software engineer" is abused and misapplied, such that when you hire a so-called S.E., what you get is little better than a VB copy&paste monkey.
I would like to see the term S.E. apply only to those people that have demonstrated engineering skills, and definitely NOT by whether they hold a fancy CS degree.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
