|
Suspicious Dish posted:there is literally no such thing as a "universal bytecode". every bytecode platform makes tradeoffs related to its language design "bluh bluh bluh this bytecode doesn't work with unicorns ruby 5.9 pony edition so this is not acceptable. no I get that it works with real languages and suits the needs of everyone who isn't a loving retard, but I don't like it."
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Universal in the sense that its standardized and works everywhere aka the only interpretation of universal that makes sense in the context. not universal as in every lovely nice language can be easily compiled to it aka the most worthless interpretation of universal in the context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
i think someone tried to buy me a lovely av and failed. welp
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
jvm bytecode is very boring and tied very tightly to the java class library (which is unacceptable for the web), and doesn't support dynamic typing or closures very well. also it doesn't have native support for generics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
yes lets please bake type erasure into the web. great idea shaggar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:jvm bytecode is very boring and tied very tightly to the java class library (which is unacceptable for the web), and doesn't support dynamic typing or closures very well. also it doesn't have native support for generics. dynamic typing and closures are both luxuries, not necessities
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:i think someone tried to buy me a lovely av and failed. welp ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
type erasure is a java thing not a jvm bytecode thing. also its not really a problem unless you're doing bad stuff. and if your language doesnt compile nicely to jvm bytecode its probably poo poo and doesnt perform anywhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
like even badlangs like ruby and python can be compiled to jvm byte code and their performance is better for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
gucci void main posted:dynamic typing and closures are both luxuries, not necessities cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Is there even a best practice (or a few good ones) for the way the web is right now anyway? Serializing viewmodels and disciplined use of jQuery seems like the best way to keep poo poo responsive but trying to style your poo poo consistently is just such a pain in the rear end it's a wonder anything works at all. I mean it could clearly be better than we're doing it now. There's just so much groan-factor in a lot of stuff being done right now I seriously want a punching bag for the office some days. I want IE to literally die. I want idiots that say "hey make your poo poo work on IE" to die since that hamstrings me as far as good debugging. I especially want state governments that think it's better to do poo poo .NET instead of going open source with something that's FREE to eat a thousand dicks. I want to try to do a sane web project that's not joined at the loving hip to IE before I say "WEB SUX" but gently caress it I'd rather do server/back end poo poo in a JVM language and kick my feet up on the desk already. Dammit you guys you were right. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:like even badlangs like ruby and python can be compiled to jvm byte code and their performance is better for it At the risk of the hipsters popping their inseams as their thongs twist and skew I really don't get the java hate. A decent text editor can poo poo out your getter/setter boilerplate and autocomplete is trivial in a decent text editor, let alone an IDE. Macros exist. Being able to read type information for parameters in Someone Else's Code is a loving godsend. I've also seen the Too Many Layers Enterprise Itis in non Java/JVM projects. I've got so many layers and injected dependencies doing the simplest of crud in my .NET project I wonder why Java gets all the blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
IE is the best so just make it work there and have it degrade on substandard browsers like webkit or firefox. ultimately the problem is the web standards are not very good and never have been very good cause they were designed by and for the idiots who use them. like they litterrally made 2 versions of html. Html (the lovely version) and xhtml (the good version) and web "developers" all purposefully chose the former. That's how bad the environment for web "development" is. but then with something like .net and wpf/xaml you can write once and have it work right on every platform with the runtime. Its super nice, but lots of stupid people unironicially believed that html was going to replace desktop applications so they put all their effort there which was an obvious mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:IE is the best so just make it work there and have it degrade on substandard browsers like webkit or firefox. huh
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:I'm doing .NET right now and got into it because I did Java so yes I do afaik the team has been looking for decent java dudes for months so i wouldn't stress about a few days. job's in ashburn, few miles north of dulles
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:IE is the best so just make it work there and have it degrade on substandard browsers like webkit or firefox. ultimately the problem is the web standards are not very good and never have been very good cause they were designed by and for the idiots who use them. older versions of ie (IE8 and previous) don't support XHTML 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:javascript will be replaced w/ language agnostic bytecode and everything will be good. I see a dream in your post... We can call it "Our Hope"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
here's a video from the official internet explorer youtube channel (????) which explains IE's support for web standards
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
I only ever use IE at work since work requires it. I always use chrome on my own. I haven't kept up with IE in ages - what's the deal with IE lately? Does it actually support plugins and CSS properly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:At the risk of the hipsters popping their inseams as their thongs twist and skew I really don't get the java hate. they don't like java cause its good and popular. many of them get over it once they leave college and actually start learning how to code, but some will always stick with it cause they don't know any better or because they're too stubborn. they don't want to give up their ponys and misogyny and hilarious monkey cheese fadlang conventions. re c#: I haven't had anything complex enough in c# to need dependency injection, just web services or small mvcs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:older versions of ie (IE8 and previous) don't support XHTML ya they do. Zaxxon posted:I see a dream in your post... We can call it "Our Hope" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:afaik the team has been looking for decent java dudes for months so i wouldn't stress about a few days. job's in ashburn, few miles north of dulles If you have PMs please tell me where to apply or I'll just send you my resume when the RTR guy is done doing his magic. I'm pretty stoked that there's a chance I could see snow again this Christmas and Florida never again Also no more javascript 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:here's a video from the official internet explorer youtube channel (????) which explains IE's support for web standards I didn't sanction this, but the anime crowd is the people most strongly resistant to IE usage so I guess it makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:If you have PMs please tell me where to apply or I'll just send you my resume when the RTR guy is done doing his magic. pm me ur resume please thats how i get the bonus
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:re c#: I haven't had anything complex enough in c# to need dependency injection, just web services or small mvcs. My point was more that Java doesn't somehow inherently require having to actually learn DI and layering and doing it, but rather that big projects need it no matter the language, and since C# is so close to Java for people to fanboy on C# because of properties, lambdas and var is kind of dumb. Unnecessary layers/DI in any language is bad and using it when needed is good. I never got the PROXYFACOTRYFACTORY bullshit being the fault of anyone except a busybody architect. Nomnom Cookie posted:pm me ur resume please thats how i get the bonus Soon as I get it you got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:ya they do. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/11/01/xhtml-in-ie9.aspx quote:IE9 is the first version of Internet Explorer to natively support XHTML. are you saying microsoft would lie to me, shaggar?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Oh my god I'm 11 hours into undoing unnecessary work a coworker did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/11/01/xhtml-in-ie9.aspx if u load xhtml in ie8 or older it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
you got it backwards shaggar. xhtml is the bad one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:if u load xhtml in ie8 or older it works. if the server tells IE that the document is HTML, IE will render the XHTML as HTML. If the server tells IE it's XHTML, then IE will prompt you to save the document to your download folder. the thing with 'the horrors of web development' is that historically, 95% of them were 'trying to deal with IE'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
you werent using xhtml, shaggar you were using html
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
any unpleasantness related to xhtml is entirely self-inflicted
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
if your server returned a text/html mime type, you were using html even if it validated even if you used a xhtml doctype
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
just for fun i looked up to see if it would be feasible to do my current thing in c# and the little toy language doesn't even come with a special functions library
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
fritz posted:just for fun i looked up to see if it would be feasible to do my current thing in c# and the little toy language doesn't even come with a special functions library in fairness c++ makes me go to boost to get digamma/polygamma, but i get lgamma in the c standard library (and all of them in scipy)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
java has that math goop in commons-math
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
i just had to finish writing my own malloc implementation in C for some bullshit school thing of course it is lovely and not nearly as good as actual malloc which is like thousands of lines but thats what they want you to do here spend a lot of time writing this thing the way i asked. ok, done? ok what you just wrote is worthless because it doesn't even deal with memory fragmentation this same teacher is all 'if u can do x it would impress me and i have like, mad job connections' thanks professor if i ever want a job coding C in the shithole south for probably like 40k i'll let you know if ur coding C and its not on an embedded system u hosed up
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:java has that math goop in commons-math oh yeah there it is, no polygamma but i only need di- and tri- and its got both wait boost doesn't have trigamma wtf
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
java wins again
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Socracheese posted:i just had to finish writing my own malloc implementation in C for some bullshit school thing lol @ u the point of reimplementing malloc isn't to make something that's as useful as real malloc, it's to prove that you understand the very basics of how malloc works wah wah wah code written for school assignments wouldn't be useful in the real world! - you
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:04
|
|