|
Still 100000x better than html/css/js
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
there are exactly 0 ways that Enterprise-Ready monstrosity is better than the ideal triune of web standards
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
oh no i have to hand-edit a couple entries into a text file nooooo
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
there's only one way to make a decent ui and that's to hand-write your css
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:there's only one way to make a decent ui and that's to hand-write your css artisanal stylesheets
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:there's only one way to make a decent ui and that's to hand-write your css itym compile your css from a more powerful language that allows you to use functions and variables
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
ok yes hand-write your less that's fine
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:Still 100000x better than html/css/js no argument from me
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
use sexprs everywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
i hate css+html+js and hope one day a better standard comes along to take it's place or (more likely) we just keep piling abstractions on top until we get somewhere good
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
what if it's just too much effort for everyone to switch the standard kind of like how the nuclear research facility in SA still runs on fortran
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
its not too much effort, its that web "developers" are terrible and think the current way of doing things is unironically good
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
it's better than any currently available alternative
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:its not too much effort, its that web "developers" are terrible and think the current way of doing things is unironically good vicious cycle of slow uptake and slow enforcement Bird Priest fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
web developers are slow human beings
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:xaml is gr8. idk what major changes have been but probably the nicest one was in .net 4 your basic poco properties notify the ui automatically w/out having to implement inotifypropertychanged you've been able to do that since before .net 4, but there's no automated notifications from your poco. the wpf crap just knows how to read the value initially. you have to force the control to refresh otherwise. all they did in .net 4 was fix the memory leak caused by it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:i hate css+html+js and hope one day a better standard comes along to take it's place or (more likely) we just keep piling abstractions on top until we get somewhere good we're never gonna get anything better because everyone's like "waaaah code to standards and standards only!" and then it takes ten years to get a retarded standard for rounded corners implemented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
PhonyMcRingRing posted:we're never gonna get anything better because everyone's like "waaaah code to standards and standards only!" and then it takes ten years to get a retarded standard for rounded corners implemented. also on one will ever replace javascript because they cant even finish it
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:41
|
|
Paracetamol Boy posted:boost is useful but there is this guy who uses boost for stuff that he can code natively in fewer lines than it takes to code the thing using boost
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
OBAMA BIN LAUGHIN posted:yeah man i mean why on earth would you want to use an extremely efficient and exhaustively tested API as opposed to just doing your own thing. that's crazy talk. boost PO instead of just using main args? crazytalk
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 21:23
|
|
Paracetamol Boy posted:boost PO instead of just using main args? boost docs posted:Introduction
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
OBAMA BIN LAUGHIN posted:these all seem like great reasons to me. oh nice
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:its not too much effort, its that web "developers" are terrible and think the current way of doing things is unironically good the state of web tech and all the stuff people pile on top of it under the guise of making them better makes me irl sad. how do we go about starting all over again? pls to work it out then do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
hello i am the exception so that is the rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Paracetamol Boy posted:hello i am the exception so that is the rule let's goonmeet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
the problem is: *browsers and *stateless protocols
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Alligator posted:me too. i'll suck your dick but don't touch me
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Alligator posted:i'm sort of a web dev and i don't think this. this but the state of cpu microarchitectures and all the stuff people pile on top of it under the guise of making them better makes me irl sad
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
i mean that there are some things that are so hilariously expensive in terms of opportunity cost to fix and replace that you might as well wish for a unicorn the web stack is one of 'em
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
rotor posted:the problem is: fighting talk
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
it is more that people are now trying to write native using sockets inside browsers using http
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
why yes having these load balancers, caches and such, oh and gateway things like cgi, let's make them harder to write and debug
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
if you want websockets and to cache the websocket stuff, why the hell do you use websockets in the first place? load-balancing can go through it fine due to the way the protocol is set up in two steps going through regular HTTP. No argument for the rest. Then again, the whole point of people tunneling their stateful poo poo through HTTP is to avoid installing software because generally there's no other okay sandboxing env around except the browser. Websockets wouldn't be needed at all if there was a good platform for people to use apps without downloading and installing poo poo as an admin with all the security risks related.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
perl is ugly as sin, dudes just FYI
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
just a heads up: programming in cobol is a pain in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Phone posted:just a heads up: programming in cobol is a pain in the rear end your goddamn right it is Lol master file
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
i have to write a programs in cobol and make up some jcl to make it run 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Phone posted:i have to write a programs in cobol Jcl is loving trash, sorry for your lot
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
i get paid in 4 days, so eh i figure that i'll become an abuse victim out of this gig or just immediately make a bee-line to get my ccna and start on my ccie if it truly drives me up a wall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 07:56
|
|