|
Undergrads who are just graduating keep posting about getting hired as software dev for legitimate companies but I used to be a demonstrator for them and they're morons, never should have done a postgrad.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
EmmyOk posted:never should have done a postgrad. Words to that effect were a Grad School and Academia Chat Thread title for a reason. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:Undergrads who are just graduating keep posting about getting hired as software dev for legitimate companies but I used to be a demonstrator for them and they're morons, never should have done a postgrad. well if you can't be a computer programmer I guess it's time to hunch your posture and work on that mma career
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:well if you can't be a computer programmer I guess it's time to hunch your posture and work on that mma career Gonna have to give up on getting all the girls
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I created a little web page to help me out with some hobby stuff, and I needed some scripting on it. When I came to test my code, I was surprised to find that by button handlers were running twice when I clicked on the button. Turns out this happened because I'm not very imaginative, and I'd named my function called on page load to attach handlers and the like "onload". If a function with this name exists, it gets called automatically, for ridiculous JavaScript reasons. So since I was also explicitly assigning that function to get called on page load using JQuery, it ran twice on page load and consequently each each button handler got attached twice. Thank you very much, JavaScript!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
window.onload runs when the page loads, yes. All your global variables are implicitly tacked on to window.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:window.onload runs when the page loads, yes. Right, I said this: Hammerite posted:for ridiculous JavaScript reasons
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:I created a little web page to help me out with some hobby stuff, and I needed some scripting on it. When I came to test my code, I was surprised to find that by button handlers were running twice when I clicked on the button. We had a bug at work where the same POST/DELETE request (don't ask) was getting run twice, and resource IDs embedded in the HTML were getting out of sync and loving up our front-end. Turns out that it's because input and button elements had an onclick method attached to them that submitted the form they were associated with, so they were submitting the same form twice.  I am the only engineer on the team that has notable Rails experience, by the by. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:We had a bug at work where the same POST/DELETE request (don't ask) was getting run twice, and resource IDs embedded in the HTML were getting out of sync and loving up our front-end. Turns out that it's because input and button elements had an onclick method attached to them that submitted the form they were associated with, so they were submitting the same form twice. Wait, the form was being submitted on onclicks on the inputs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
HardDisk posted:Wait, the form was being submitted on onclicks on the inputs? Yes. From what I recall, it was so it could support some sort of AJAX-y autosave function whenever you type into a text box. Or maybe that was something else, because that doesn't actually make sense. gently caress if I know what it was trying to do. Incidentally, one of the major features we have in the pipeline for the application is that the users are closing the window without hitting save and losing their stuff, please change it so that everything autosaves all the time thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Incidentally, one of the major features we have in the pipeline for the application is that the users are closing the window without hitting save and losing their stuff, please change it so that everything autosaves all the time thanks. no why 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Form engines are literally the worst part of coding for the web.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yes. From what I recall, it was so it could support some sort of AJAX-y autosave function whenever you type into a text box. Or maybe that was something else, because that doesn't actually make sense. gently caress if I know what it was trying to do. Welcome to hell. I've seen that very same request gently caress up many projects. Pick your poison: - The onunload handler that makes multiple synchronous ajax calls and runs like 5000 lines of code. - The onbeforeunload handler that shows an annoying message box and blocks any javascript from running while it's showing. - A post every minute that saves the state of the application, and deletes itself if you really close, but if you don't, it resumes the state. - Let's put the content of every form in localstorage and clear it when you close the window. - Let's make this poo poo realtime like google docs and make it so every time you do something, it's saved for everyone, but let's also not understand what websockets are and try to do this by polling a slow-rear end service that takes a second to respond for each request and wonder why it's slow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:Right, I said this: Totes, a part of JS programming (at least on a browser) that is probably older than you are is at fault here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
tyrelhill posted:Totes, a part of JS programming (at least on a browser) that is probably older than you are is at fault here. I'm glad we all agree about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
If the form takes more than 1 minute to fill out, yeah, it should probably be saved as you go. I felt bad for one of our clients when we essentially shipped them an enormous web form they could easily spend 15 minutes filling out if they weren't just typing it in as fast as they could from a handwritten copy. Feature request: saves. I feel as though there is a short list of general fuckups that developers of line-of-business apps make because they're doing what's easy instead of what would be useful for their customers. One of them is this kind of "save what the gently caress I'm doing" stuff. Another is "make it so I can view old versions of the data", which devs preclude by performing destructive operations on data as a first resort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
tyrelhill posted:Totes, a part of JS programming (at least on a browser) that is probably older than you are is at fault here. I'm 30, glad we agree this is bad of Javascript though
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:I'm 30, glad we agree this is bad of Javascript though They were only 9 years off.. The solution to the problem is to not use JavaScript. It's the solution to all problems with JavaScript.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
leper khan posted:They were only 9 years off.. Good luck with that. How much stuff out there is legacy stuff heavy on ancient Javascript that nobody wants to pay to replace?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Good luck with that. How much stuff out there is legacy stuff heavy on ancient Javascript that nobody wants to pay to replace? I mean worst case I can go write mumps for a medical device company. At least it isn't JavaScript..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I feel like JS gets too much hate. I mean, it's not great, and you've got to know lots of gotchas...but once I got past that hump I think it's alright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I feel like JS gets too much hate. I mean, it's not great, and you've got to know lots of gotchas...but once I got past that hump I think it's alright. I'm learning it now because of my job and it's legitimately the only language I genuinely hate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I quite like JS tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
leper khan posted:The solution to the problem is to not use JavaScript. It's the solution to all problems with JavaScript. Just to clarify here are you advocating the use of a bespoke language which compiles into JavaScript or are you advocating the abolishment of web browsers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I feel like JS gets too much hate. I mean, it's not great, and you've got to know lots of gotchas...but once I got past that hump I think it's alright. it's the lack of choice javascript is wayyy too high-level to be the core ABI of an application platform. thanks to historical accidents we've been stuck with that, as well as its actual design mistakes (which were major) like if the web is going to be "computers 2.0" then this thing is in the position of assembly. imagine if instead of being able to access registers the hardware just gave you garbage-collected hash tables..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
If you think JavaScript is so bad that you can't possibly imagine Mumps being any worse, you need your head examined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
JavaScript's inextricable linkage to the browser stack is precisely equivalent to the reason C still exists. The takeaway lesson is don't implement a language in a hurry and choose semantics simply because they make writing a compiler or interpreter easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
qntm posted:If you think JavaScript is so bad that you can't possibly imagine Mumps being any worse, you need your head examined. MUMPS was born in a PDP-7, a machine that topped 64 KWords of memory. The comparison is not fair
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Amberskin posted:MUMPS was born in a PDP-7, a machine that topped 64 KWords of memory. The comparison is not fair Someone just said that they'd rather program mumps than JS...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Javascript is mostly fine with a few warts. It's the frameworks and libraries that are built with javascript that are the true horrors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I feel like JS gets too much hate. I mean, it's not great, and you've got to know lots of gotchas...but once I got past that hump I think it's alright. I agree. It's a bad language and I certainly wouldn't defend it, but the griping seems a bit over the top sometimes. This opinion may be influenced by the fact that I've only used javascript for personal projects. I'd imagine it would be much worse if I had to work with other people's code.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
I think it's important to make it clear whether it's javascript you like, or jQuery. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Someone just said that they'd rather program mumps than JS... i do program mumps and it's way less painful than js, but also you can't really do anything with it that you would use js for. you are not gonna escape js on your front end by using an esoteric backend. we have js on our front end. also lol that this discussion started because someone is upset that a window event handler is fired when the window event occurs as though that's some arcane js bullshit and not like the explicit point of events in any language.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Form engines are literally the worst part of coding for the web. I won't argue against this. In fact, I think you might be right Especially when people try and implement complicated functionality using nothing but motherfucking forms. I've outright said that I don't work with Rails forms and barely know how they work, and there's really only one other engineer that likes using them - this is the same person that was trying to do real-time AJAX responses/updates via Turbolinks or whatever.Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:Welcome to hell. I've seen that very same request gently caress up many projects. None of the above - if I remember correctly, we have it so that whenever something loses focus, it posts to the server. fleshweasel posted:If the form takes more than 1 minute to fill out, yeah, it should probably be saved as you go. I felt bad for one of our clients when we essentially shipped them an enormous web form they could easily spend 15 minutes filling out if they weren't just typing it in as fast as they could from a handwritten copy. Feature request: saves. These are basically spreadsheets where information is being entered one cell at a time. So maybe it counts, but I mean, even then...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I think it's important to make it clear whether it's javascript you like, or jQuery. I'm convinced that jquery is sorcery. Everything I've written in it looks like gibberish and I'll be totally unable to explain why it works but it does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Of all the problems with Javascript, namespace issues with the window events is way down on the list. I don't hate it most.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Amberskin posted:MUMPS was born in a PDP-7, a machine that topped 64 KWords of memory. The comparison is not fair As opposed to C...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:As opposed to C... C is a lot less ambitious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:Just to clarify here are you advocating the use of a bespoke language which compiles into JavaScript or are you advocating the abolishment of web browsers? While I would prefer the latter (at least for interactive applications), I will accept the former.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Sinestro posted:C is a lot less ambitious. C manages to be pretty horrific despite its lack of ambition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:48
|
|