On 04/24/2018 08:29 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> like I did a wysiwyg editor for work that is a redistributable server exe they run locally, but the ui is in a browser. You get better results on firefox than chrome due to a bunch of little things.)

Yea, Chrome is kind of notorious for random breakages compared to other browsers. Google seems to still be a fan of that "move fast to break everything" fad that (unsurprisingly) has been biting Facebook in the ass.

> Same with deprecation. Web stuff breaks somewhat frequently, and new features requiring bleeding edge won't always be there.

Honestly, I find that if my web sites exhibit browser-compatibility issues, it means I've over-engineered something. Even in Chrome, the HTML/CSS basics are pretty stable. It's only when you start getting into the "newer is better" bleeding edge "this week's version of webdev best practices" stuff, and toolkits and the like, that things start falling apart.

On 04/23/2018 11:46 PM, Nerve wrote:
> The user DOES NOT CARE how easy it is for you to maintain your codebase.

That needs to be painted on every wall, and etched into every computer, and tattooed onto every forehead, at every developer workspace in the world.

On 04/24/2018 10:30 AM, Thomas Brix Larsen wrote:
> 
> I'd recommend dqml[1] or full Qt using Calypso[2] instead of QtE5. I'm currently using dqml in a project and it is working out great.

Why not QtE5? I've been meaning to give it a try.

On 04/24/2018 02:43 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 
> This reminds me of Nick Sabalausky's rant once that back in the 80's we
> used to run programs on 64KB RAM and 8kHz CPUs, and lived with the slow
> performance, and nowadays we have GB's of RAM and multicore GHz CPUs,
> and we are finally able to write web apps that do basically the same
> things with about the same slow performance as in the 80's (but with
> many orders of magnitude greater resource consumption).  Software has
> come a long ways indeed.</sarcasm> :-D
>

Except that I don't think I ever once experienced the degree of text-entry delay or random stutters on my Apple II that I regularly experience on my "modern" PC which is more than capable of, ex., far surpassing Myst-level imagery in real-time, among other supercomputer feats.

Now that we have ARM, GPU computing, Gates is retired and MS isn't the big dog it used to be, I think we need to bring back and update the old "What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away" saying ;)

On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 at 03:00:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:

> Yea, Chrome is kind of notorious for random breakages compared to other browsers. Google seems to still be a fan of that "move fast to break everything" fad that (unsurprisingly) has been biting Facebook in the ass.

> Honestly, I find that if my web sites exhibit browser-compatibility issues, it means I've over-engineered something. Even in Chrome, the HTML/CSS basics are pretty stable. It's only when you start getting into the "newer is better" bleeding edge "this week's version of webdev best practices" stuff, and toolkits and the like, that things start falling apart.

I recently had this issue with Chrome [1] and it is honestly annoying. I found out that it had been reported several times and what do Chrome devs say? Issue closed, it's an effin feature. To me it looks like they were over-intellectualizing the issue and came up with a "feature" that is counter-intuitive.

The thing about (Google) Chrome is this: unlike IE, it used to comply with web standards. No surprises, no stupid work arounds required, no two sets of code. IE went down, Chrome went up, and justly so. But now Chrome is becoming the new old IE (Mind you, even MS copped it that they had to comply with the standards!). And not to mention the built-in data "leakage". But like IE back in the day, everybody uses Chrome by default.

Imo, HTML+CSS are still good ways to build interfaces fast. I think there should be more UI frameworks (native or not) that provide this option instead of each framework cooking its own stew.

As for JS, I agree with TheGag96, you simply cannot write beautiful code in JS. There are two scenarios. 1. You can use JS for the mere basics and have it communicate with the server, say vibe.d, and the real cool stuff happens on the server in D. 2. You need to keep things flexible on the client side and process a lot of stuff (e.g. data you get back from the server) with JS, so you don't need to change-and-recompile vibe.d and others can change things according to their needs. It will get a bit messy, it's JS after all. To keep things simple follow these rules, if you have to use JS:

1. Don't try to be smart, don't try to write flashy or beautiful code. JS will thwart you.
2. Use the same dumb routines all over the place, it's easier to copy-and-paste and it will prevent breakage.
3. Stay away from the latest features that seem to work but are officially not "implemented yet"
4. Wait. JS engines are getting better and better.

Having said this, _vibe.d can also as a GUI client_. Cf. D Web Development, Kai Nacke.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20367046/onclick-event-firing-in-firefox-and-ie-but-not-in-chrome

On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 at 03:05:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> On 04/24/2018 10:30 AM, Thomas Brix Larsen wrote:
>> 
>> I'd recommend dqml[1] or full Qt using Calypso[2] instead of QtE5. I'm currently using dqml in a project and it is working out great.
>
> Why not QtE5? I've been meaning to give it a try.

It is just the parts of Qt needed by the author. Only minor parts of QtCore, QtGui, QtScript, QtWebEngine, and QtWidgets seems to be wrapped. While modern Qt user interfaces are mostly made with QML (QtDeclarative and QtQuickControls2).

https://github.com/MGWL/QtE5/tree/master/source

On 04/25/2018 05:49 AM, Chris wrote:
> 
> I recently had this issue with Chrome [1] and it is honestly annoying. I found out that it had been reported several times and what do Chrome devs say? Issue closed, it's an effin feature. To me it looks like they were over-intellectualizing the issue and came up with a "feature" that is counter-intuitive.
> 
> The thing about (Google) Chrome is this: unlike IE, it used to comply with web standards. No surprises, no stupid work arounds required, no two sets of code. IE went down, Chrome went up, and justly so. But now Chrome is becoming the new old IE (Mind you, even MS copped it that they had to comply with the standards!). And not to mention the built-in data "leakage". 

Yea. Google's pretty much decided they own the web and related standards. (If silicon valley has its way, in a few years time we won't even have an internet, we'll just have Facebook and Google. Heck, we're lucky that hasn't already happened...although...in some ways it arguably has...)

Funny thing is, and I'm no MS apologist, but back when MS was the one trying to decide how the web should operate, at least they actually made some vastly BETTER design choices than the W3C did. Ex, IE's old box model and its JS API for handling separate mouse buttons were actually SANE compared to the ridiculous equivalents from the W3C (can't help wondering if the W3C went contrary to MS on those designs just to spite MS (not that I can completely blame them), though I don't know how the timeline went and who's designs came first).

But fast-forward to now when it's now Google instead of MS saying "We'll be the ones designing the web standards, thank you very much, W3C.", they don't even have the benefit of making BETTER designs like MS did, they're just making random contradictory decisions. Quirk's Mode <https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/> is constantly finding new Google Chrome "interpretations" that are just...well, at best, they're not an improvement over W3C.

> But like IE back in the day, everybody uses Chrome by default.

Well yea, all the hipster nerds say Google is God and Chrome is what you should be using, so it must be so. ;)

At the very least, I just wish there was a good choice. Mozilla used to be the Burger King of browsers ("Your way, right away."), but they've spent the last decade hopping on silicon valley's "Our developers matter more than our users" bandwagon, too. (The "Soup Nazis" of software.)

On 04/25/2018 10:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> 
> Yea. Google's [complain, gripe, blah, blah, blah...]
I found this to be a very interesting, and not particularly surprising, peek at the way things work^H^H^H^Hoperate inside Google-ville:

https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/

I guess it indirectly explains many things. Like why my Android device can't even handle basic WiFi things like...oh...not loosing my wireless password every-single-time. Or...connecting to another machine *on the same freaking network* without using a Google-hosted service (erm, sorry, I mean "cloud") as a go-between. Well, no matter, just like my laptop, I'll just ditch the pack-in OS in favor of Linux...oh wait...crap.

Am Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:45:59 -0400 schrieb Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa):

> On 04/25/2018 10:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
>> 
>> Yea. Google's [complain, gripe, blah, blah, blah...]
> I found this to be a very interesting, and not particularly surprising, peek at the way things work^H^H^H^Hoperate inside Google-ville:
> 
> https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/
> 
> I guess it indirectly explains many things. Like why my Android device can't even handle basic WiFi things like...oh...not loosing my wireless password every-single-time. Or...connecting to another machine *on the same freaking network* without using a Google-hosted service (erm, sorry, I mean "cloud") as a go-between. Well, no matter, just like my laptop, I'll just ditch the pack-in OS in favor of Linux...oh wait...crap.

Maybe this will help:
https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/

Hope is the last thing to die ;-)

-- 
Johannes

On 04/26/2018 03:20 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> 
> Maybe this will help:
> https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
> 
> Hope is the last thing to die ;-)
> 

Thanks for the link, looks interesting. Don't quite understand how that distributed telephony is supposed to work though, while still (hopefully) interoperating with the standard telephone network.

Fingers crossed for that device or something like it, but not holding my breath (and as much as I hate Google/Android, anything without a built-in point-tipped stylus is useless to me and has basically zero chance of replacing my Galaxy Note - unfortunately).

Thing is, there's been so many attempts at iOS/Android alternatives already, and by much bigger organizations too. Even MS couldn't hold on, and that's the same company that was able to force their way into the notoriously tough-to-crack game console market by sheer financial force alone (by weathering a loss that even dwarfed the Dreamcast). So I fear that "hope" is ALL there is at this point. But I hope I'm wrong ;)

(And even if it does pan out, it's not like many people could just install it on an existing device: Those stupid things are locked down far tighter than any modern PC BIOS.)

I'll definitely keep an eye on that though.