"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gmfr9m$2u54$1@digitalmars.com...
> Plus, notice that you can't open one of the files in a new tab without it *also* opening in the same tab.

Clarification: That problem seems to happen on Ctrl-Click, but not "Right-Click"->"Open In New Tab".

Chris Nicholson-Sauls Wrote:

> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> > It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use signals.
> 
> Very cool!  What versions of DMD/Tango are currently known to work with QtD?  (ie, what are you developing against.)  It'd be nifty to add a QtD profile to Sean Kerr's awesomely nifty sandboxing script.
> 
> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

It's dmd v1.036 and tango-trunk dated November 25. But QtD is not on the bleeding edge of both compiler and tango, so I think tango 1.037 will be enough, so as compiler.
I should specify dependency on tango on main page.

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Daniel Keep escribió:
>> "No files in this directory."
>>
>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>
>> *unblocks javascript*
>>
>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>
>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript...
> 
> What? Why?
> 
> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.

...

I *really* hope you're joking.

As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.

*deep breath*

<tirade>

I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general.
 But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is
when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS.

Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events.  Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs.  Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site!

Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:

> <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>

Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING.

This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable.  It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!"

No, you broke my legs you bastard!

What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_.

You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3].

As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn & quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head.  Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure.

</tirade>

Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.

 -- Daniel

[1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.

[2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

Also, I apologise for the derailment.

Back on topic for a moment, I've never worked with Qt before, but going over some of the examples it shows definite promise.  It certainly looks easier to use than other toolkits I've worked with in the past.

Again, sorry for getting off-topic, and do keep up the good work.  :)

  -- Daniel

Reply to Ary,

> What? Why?
> 
> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
> 
>

without javascript, the page should show the full directory tree (or n levels down). they could get real cute and have that anyway and just have the JS hide it.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> </tirade>
>
> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>
>  -- Daniel
>
> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>
> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

There's something really humorous about a guy going on a rambling, fired-up, emotional tirade for a page and a half, but concluding it with proper footnotes.    :-)

--bb

Reply to Bill,

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep
> <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But
>> you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't
>> figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages
>> [3].
[...]

what I want to known is what happened to that last footnote!

>> </tirade>
>> 
>> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>> 
>> -- Daniel
>> 
>> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>> 
>> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
>> function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
>> image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
>> 
> There's something really humorous about a guy going on a rambling,
> fired-up, emotional tirade for a page and a half, but concluding it
> with proper footnotes.    :-)
> 
> --bb
> 

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gmfujj$2t5$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Daniel Keep escribió:
>>> "No files in this directory."
>>>
>>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>>
>>> *unblocks javascript*
>>>
>>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>>
>>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript...
>>
>> What? Why?
>>
>> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
>
> So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.
>
> ...
>
> I *really* hope you're joking.
>
> As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.
>
> *deep breath*
>
> <tirade>
>
> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS.
>
> Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events.  Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs.  Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site!
>
> Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
>
>> <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>
>
> Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING.
>
> This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable.  It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!"
>
> No, you broke my legs you bastard!
>
> What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_.
>
> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3].
>
> As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn & quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head.  Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure.
>
> </tirade>
>
> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>
> -- Daniel
>
> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>
> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse for so many of the things that most web developers do.

Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox 3... ;)

BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating".

Also, your footnote [3] seems to be missing...I'm on the edge of my seat here!!

Daniel Keep escribió:
> 
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Daniel Keep escribió:
>>> "No files in this directory."
>>>
>>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>>
>>> *unblocks javascript*
>>>
>>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>>
>>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
>>> making their sites break without Javascript...
>> What? Why?
>>
>> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
> 
> So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.
> 
> ...
> 
> I *really* hope you're joking.
> 
> As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two things
> you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and
> visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing
> pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.
> 
> *deep breath*
> 
> <tirade>
> 
(...)
> 
> </tirade>
> 
> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.

lol :)

Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree, but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like dsource) is slow for me.

You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link is stupid.

But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.

What kind of sites do you go that are so bad?  I find things a little annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use.  So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something?  Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?

--bb