"Chris R Miller" <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gmgeq2$11jp$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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".
>
> You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites.  I use the 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.

Adblock Plus blocks any type of ad, not just popups. To be honest, I would have no problem with web ads if they were just simple static images like from back before popups. It's just all of the visual-movement, slow-JS, potential for malware, etc. that I can't/won't tolerate.

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

Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad response. Finally, I figured out, that the cause was some JavaScript code included from Amazon. It showed some applet on the bottom of the archive page, and it didn't even work. All it did was displaying some loading gif animation and eating CPU. When I blocked Amazon, all was fast and responsive again.

Another example is Candydoc. That tree on the left is awful JavaScript hackery. It only works if JS is enabled, and even then it is slow, annoying to use, and all that. Candydoc advertises itself as "Produced result is AJAX web-application that is compatible with all mainstream web browsers." Without AJAX, the authot of Candydoc would have done a much better job. Now isn't that typical?

(By the way, AJAX for offline browsable documentation? What?)

And sorry, I can't stop my rant. Did you ever see those polls, which are mostly added on the left or right border of a webpage? Lately, I only see AJAX-style ones, and you can use them only with JavaScript enabled. When you vote, they show an animation, which alpha blends from one display state into another. Wheee, great. In the old days, you had to wait for the slow GUI to respond. Today, you wait for the GUI animation to finish. Both introduce a small but annoying delay.

And not to forgot, when some dirty piece of AJAX JavaScript code runs wild. Then it will send HTTP requests in a loop, even though the page finished loading. Good that we have Noscript to trash the AJAX programmer's worthless effort.

Sometimes I love new technology.

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>> David Ferenczi Wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
>>>
>>> Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> tutorials are in trunk/examples
>> http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples
> 
> "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...
> 
>   -- Daniel
> 
> (Not angry at you, Eldar; angry at Google.  They should know better :) )

Finally somehow who shares my pain. You have my sympathy.

Especially Google is really bad with this. Not only are they pushing AJAX. They completely fail to make their sites useful without JS. Did you ever try to browse Youtube with JavaScript disabled? It's really fun to see, for what things they thought you _must_ have JS enabled.

(My solution to this is not to browse Youtube at all.)

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gmg4oj$dqp$2@digitalmars.com...
>
>
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :)
>>
>> Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading
>> disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests).
>> But
>> dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a
>> single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking,
>> spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a
>> voice
>> reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction
>> that
>> my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned,
>> there
>> shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be
>> blocked
>> out of my mind in the first place.
>
> I run AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock and Nuke Anything Enchanced.  And if I DO see an ad get through all that, I add the company to my mental "people I will never buy from" list.
>
> I'm an advertiser's worst nightmare.
>

I use QuickJava instead of NoScript. I find it handy to be able to toggle JS on/off with just a single click. I used to keep JS off by default and only turn it on when I really needed it, but sites requiring JS became more and more common to the point that I ended up reluctantly just keeping JS on by default, and only turning it off when something obnoxious is going on. Not an action I'm proud of, but it keeps me sane.

My other bare-minimum essentials, in addition to Adblock Plus and FlashBlock, are Winestripe, Tab Mix Plus, and DisableBackspaceNavigation. I also make heavy use of Repagination, DownThemAll (I'm a packrat), BatchDownload, DownloadHelper, Download Statusbar (a little ugly, but much more handy than the default download window) and FasterFox (useful to see just how absurdly slow page-loading often is. I'm on a good broadband connection, and I frequently find sites that take 40-50 seconds to load a single page whenever JS is enabled (that's a good example of how JS slows the web down instead of speeding it up)).

Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D?

"grauzone" <none@example.net> wrote in message news:gmgjou$1af5$1@digitalmars.com...
>> But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?
>

> Another example is Candydoc. That tree on the left is awful JavaScript hackery. It only works if JS is enabled, and even then it is slow, annoying to use, and all that. Candydoc advertises itself as "Produced result is AJAX web-application that is compatible with all mainstream web browsers." Without AJAX, the authot of Candydoc would have done a much better job. Now isn't that typical?
>
> (By the way, AJAX for offline browsable documentation? What?)

Yes, yes, yes, exactly! A couple more examples of API docs that are barely-usable (ie, painful sluggishness, lack of offline viewing, and general bugginess) thanks to AJAX: MSDN Library and Adobe LiveDocs.

>
> When you vote, they show an animation, which alpha blends from one display state into another. Wheee, great. In the old days, you had to wait for the slow GUI to respond. Today, you wait for the GUI animation to finish. Both introduce a small but annoying delay.
>

Yes, yes, yes, exactly! DVD menus do it too, and the blatant lack of thought that goes into such a design always irritates me. "I don't want to [watch | listen to] some cute little [transition | movie quote | film clip], I just want to [watch the movie | select a scene | setup audio options | view extras]."

Most people, like myself, who have spent time in game programming (particularly old-school style games) learn very quickly that interactive interfaces need to have response times of no more than about 100ms max (preferably less) and transition times of no more than about 250ms (preferably less) for the user to really feel "in control". That's *not* much time, and far less time than many modern interface designers (games or otherwise) are comfortable restricting themselves to these days. I think part of the problem is that artists and graphic designers are usually hired for these jobs instead of actual interactive interface designers (because when most managers think "user interface" they just think of the visual side, and sometimes audio too, but they don't know that there are also temporal and usability concerns).

> And not to forgot, when some dirty piece of AJAX JavaScript code runs wild. Then it will send HTTP requests in a loop, even though the page finished loading. Good that we have Noscript to trash the AJAX programmer's worthless effort.
>
> Sometimes I love new technology.

I have a certain viewpoint on that:

AIUI, The strict definition of "technology" is the application of science to improve the quality of life. As such, there are many things that people consider to be "technologies" that I insist aren't technologies because they only satisfy the "application of science" part and not the "improve the quality of life" part. (A related pet peeve I have when dealing with laymen: "Technology" does not necessarily imply "electronics". Heck, even indoor plumbing is a technology...and one of my personal favorites ;) )

Nick Sabalausky escribió:
> "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gmg4av$dqp$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> 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.
>> The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional
>> alternative, they give you none.
>>
>> It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that
>> they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.
>>
>>> You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link
>>> is stupid.
>> Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do
>> that.  They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere.  The
>> catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that
>> require a special spanner to turn.
>>
>> Such spanners were never built.
>>
>>> But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?
>> Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in
>> browsers, it's not the language itself.  It's how it's used.  It's the
>> constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience.  I think I
>> enumerated all the big ones previously.
>>
>> Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help.  They come over,
>> and are really helpful.  But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and
>> kick you between the legs.  Then go back to being helpful.
>>
>> Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they
>> is.  Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so
>> long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled.
>>
>> Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash...
>>
> 
> Oh great, now you've gotten ME started on Flash... ;)
> 
> There are a LOT of people (myself included), that will immediately leave a site, never to return, the moment they see that FlashBlocker box taking up 99% of the page. I can sum up all my feelings about Flash (and many, but not all, uses of JS) pretty simply: They are the 2000's version of animating GIFs and blink tags, except it's worse simply because most people don't seem to have actually learned anything from the history of animating GIFs and blink tags.
> 
> Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains.
> 
> Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP.  Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm))

Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoooooo!!!

grauzone Wrote:

> Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D?

Yes. But it is limited. No information, no dynamic invokation, different type of connections not implemented(but this theoretically is possible to do without moc)

Thank you!

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

> David Ferenczi Wrote:
> 
>> I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
>> 
>> Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoooooo!!!

I can -- it looks like about:blank.