"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.166.1243199156.13405.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com... On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> I use Firefox too.  My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's running in 32-bit mode.

Umm, yea, any site/browser that needs an Athlon X2 64 4600+ to run properly is most definitely a piece of shit.

"Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gvcdpg$2q8d$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
>> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
> lol

Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.

Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell 2008's anymore!!

It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how frequently people actually try to use it.

Hello Nick,

> Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
> I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
> for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is
> people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.
> 
> Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on
> 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell
> 2008's anymore!!
> 
> It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how
> frequently people actually try to use it.

If I'm ever in a position to do it, I will spec the target platform for a program as something like the 20th percentile of computers used by our target market when the project is started. I'd get a bunch of system like that and then mandate that any prototypes be shown to management on one of them before it's shown on anything else and that the devs must run their code on them regularly.

I wouldn't have any problem with the program being able to take advantage of something a lot newer, but it darn well better run on those old boxes.

"Ary Borenszweig" <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message news:gvcehp$2rdf$1@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone escribió:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>
> Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your web browser. So that's not a reason.
>

Yea, well, why add more?

> Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload the whole page again.
>

In theory, sure.

Now in practice:

1. The JS still has to be parsed and executed. That takes time in addition to everything else the browser would normally be doing.

2. The time taken by all of the other useless crap the JS is often doing can easily overshadow the time for a few extra k of content.

3. A lot of times it'll even add extra trips to the server (and in many cases, a number of complete different servers/domains) because in addition to loading the main page and images, a lot of those AJAX-heads have decided they have to have a bunch of individual pieces of content downloaded individually by a script in the main page. That's a lot slower than just downloading it as part of the original page.

4. Like grauzone said, there are other ways to decrease the need for full-page reloads.

>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing.
>
> Not if implemented correctly.

And if JS and Flash were typically used correctly I wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

How often is AJAX actually implemented correctly? Certainly no more often than any other use of JS or Flash. And like grauzone said, it makes it far too difficult to actually get it right. I know from direct personal contact: the typical web developer is a lazy SOB. If it's hard for them to get something right (*IF* they even care about getting things right - and with web developers, that's rarely the case), then they're not going to bother to get it right. And surprise, surprise, most of them don't get it right.

> See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too.
>
> And
>> occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?
>
> To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.

That's more myth than truth. Users don't need those kinds of animations to know what's going on. And for the users that are unknowledgeable enough to not know what's going on without animations, they're certainly *not* going to understand the animations either. All they're going to understand is "Oh, look, there's colors and shapes moving around".

Seriously, I've sat and watched these people. Animations make FAR less difference, even with novices, than most people like to think. The only true purpose those sorts of animations serve is to *dazzle* people into opening their wallets. It's little more than a modern equivalent of those loud salesmen with greased hair and a tacky almost Liberace-esque suit, surrounded by banners and confetti, etc...

Additionally, even in a case where an animation would aid in understanding, it only needs to be a split-second. Probably about 250ms max. Anything longer than that (which accounts for the vast majority of such animations on the web...as well as DVD) and interface feels unresponsive.

Plus, particularly with JS, those animations are incredibly jerky. So even from a purely aesthetic point of view, they just look awful, and even unprofessional.

"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff64568cbaad2fa3b96f0@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.
>>
>> Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell 2008's anymore!!
>>
>> It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how frequently people actually try to use it.
>
> If I'm ever in a position to do it, I will spec the target platform for a program as something like the 20th percentile of computers used by our target market when the project is started. I'd get a bunch of system like that and then mandate that any prototypes be shown to management on one of them before it's shown on anything else and that the devs must run their code on them regularly.
>
> I wouldn't have any problem with the program being able to take advantage of something a lot newer, but it darn well better run on those old boxes.
>

I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote from "CliffyB" or any of the others...

Hello Nick,

> I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much
> the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote
> from "CliffyB" or any of the others...
> 

I'm sorry to disappoint, but gaming is the only case where building to the latest hardware has any rational justification. That said, build to scale all the way down is also a good idea, but I have no problem with games that use and need a nice system to run. Than again I'm not a gamer by any stretch.

grauzone wrote:
>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
> 
> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
> 
> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?
> 
> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.
> 
> For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)
> 
> They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!
> 
> Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.
> 
> /rant (I feel better now.)

Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P

Alexander Pánek wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>>
>> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?
>>
>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.
>>
>> For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)
>>
>> They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!
>>
>> Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.
>>
>> /rant (I feel better now.)
> 
> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
> 
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 
> 
> 
> No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P

Oh god... why...

grauzone wrote:
> Alexander Pánek wrote:
>> grauzone wrote:
>>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>>
>>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>>>
>>> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?
>>>
>>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.
>>>
>>> For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)
>>>
>>> They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!
>>>
>>> Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.
>>>
>>> /rant (I feel better now.)
>>
>> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>>
>> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 
>>
>>
>> No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P
> 
> Oh god... why...

*snip*

“The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window contains a smaller element, the user doesn’t need to load an entirely new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements that don’t need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button of some sort.”

Because. ;)

Alexander Pánek wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Alexander Pánek wrote:
>>> grauzone wrote:
>>>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>>>
>>>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>>>>
>>>> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?
>>>>
>>>> About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.
>>>>
>>>> For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)
>>>>
>>>> They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!
>>>>
>>>> Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.
>>>>
>>>> /rant (I feel better now.)
>>>
>>> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>>>
>>> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P
>>
>> Oh god... why...
> 
> *snip*
> 
> “The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window contains a smaller element, the user doesn’t need to load an entirely new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements that don’t need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button of some sort.”

Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.

> Because. ;)