|
Does anyone have any experience with mediaboxAdvanced and have anything good or bad to say about it? Are there any alternatives? I've got a lot of links to various types of video files and I'm looking for the easiest way to reliably play them. Most of them are urls directly to video files, but it'd be nice to be able to do embeds from places like youtube and Vimeo with it as well.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Unfortunately, it looks like jplayer only supports HTML5 video types. A good chunk of the videos I'd like to serve are .mov (QuickTime) files and other non-HTML5 video types.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I imagine it'll be an unpopular opinion, but poo poo like this just depresses me. I agree with all of this. The general idea behind CSS is good, but the actual way you do stuff is just obtuse. Web development involves taking a bunch of sub-optimal parts, mashing them together in the most elegant way possible, and calling it a day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I'm more looking for some ideas on how to organize some information and less looking for critiques, so maybe this should go here instead of the super (un)popular critique thread? This is just early stages of a toy site I made and on which I was really just concerned with writing the backend, but currently I'm kinda stumped with how to organize the info that appears when you click any of the movie titles. Right now I have it all just kinda dumped in a Bootstrap well, but I'm not married to that idea. I just don't really have any ideas about how else to display it, and it looks kinda blah as is. Any ideas or sources of inspiration that you think would match up with the type of info I'm trying to display? http://www.trailerthingy.com/ password: imagoon 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
spacebard posted:If you're planning on making it public, then I would organize it semantically. Maybe with the Movie schema? Oh My Science posted:I think there are two things that stand out most to me. Thanks guys. That'll help me get my creative juices unstuck.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
fuf posted:What was the name of that software that set up some kind of virtual web server really easily? I feel like the word 'up' was involved somehow. http://www.vagrantup.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
haakman posted:there is a ) at the end. There is no corresponding ( anywhere above it. Why does this work? Is this intended? Is it just a quirk of the language that it needs to be there? code:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Bootstrap 3 RC1 is out.quote:While our last major version bump (2.0) was a complete rewrite of the docs, CSS, and JavaScript, the move to 3.0 is equally ambitious, but for a different reason: Bootstrap 3 will be mobile-first. The single biggest change is that there are no longer separate fluid/responsive/fixed stuff. Just one type of grid/css. Rest of changes here. Thermopyle fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
I'm messing around with Bootstrap 3 here. Is there some sort of design principle behind why they use a media query to remove the rounded corners on the nav pills at the top when the width is > 768px, or is that just weird? It certainly just seems weird to me, but I'm just a programmer pretending to design.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:Found it! Your nav ul has an extra class in it. Remove navbar-nav and it fixes itself. Oops, thanks! That's a remnant of migrating from Bootstrap 2. Oh My Science posted:Note - It seems to break the way it scales down, consider using the navbar instead. Hrmph. It sure does.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Jake Blues posted:but they JUST updated php.net Ha. Sounds about par for the course when it comes to PHP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
#web on synirc. Done. Go there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but there's a new attack that allows recovery of data from SSL encrypted sessions that are compressed via gzip. Here's a surprisingly readable paper on the attack. The current mitigation involves disabling gzip compression on your server or framework.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Lightning Zwei posted:Thanks for the quick replies, and no I'm not necessarily stuck on learning asp.net or c# I just assumed it would be easier to learn given that I'm already learning Java. You'll become a better programmer if you learn completely different languages. Lightning Zwei posted:I started out messing around with twitter bootstrap and bootstrap plus because I liked how simple it was to modify the templates and I like the clean visual aesthetics. But I suppose I can use bootstrap stylesheets and still code with ruby, and once I get the hang of it I can just create my own custom stylesheets anyway. Any technology stack you use is going to have to have stylesheets and Bootstrap is a fine framework to use. I'd challenge you a little bit on the "I can just create my own custom stylesheets anyway" part. There's nothing wrong with using a framework like Bootstrap, and in fact, as long as it meets your needs, you're possibly better off not creating your own and just customizing Bootstrap as needed. Lightning Zwei posted:So ruby is probably my best bet? I'd vote for Python+Flask+Peewee (or Django, but I think Flask is probably better to get your head around everything that goes on with a modern server+site+client), but that's a personal preference. Ruby+Rails is also good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Sudden Infant Def Syndrome posted:As someone who has always programmed in PHP, are there benefits I could be missing out on with Python or Ruby? Hmm. This is a hard question to answer. I mean, if you're getting your job done with PHP and you don't hate it, then don't bother. I mean, if your sites work, and you don't care about being more efficient because you're just there to punch the clock and besides you've got to convince management to change their technology stack...there's no point in it. I've only lightly dabbled in PHP because PHP sucks so bad (completely possible that I just don't get it, but going by the Coding Horrors thread, and stuff like this I'm thinking I do get it and it just sucks), but I'm pretty sure you took the time to learn Python you'd be pretty happy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:__metaclass__ Nobody learning python will ever hear about __metaclass__, and by the time you've got to the point where you do hear about it, you'll go "why the hell would I use that?", and if you don't there's no hope for you and there's bound to be other horrors in your code.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:It's really not that bad now. They even have exceptions! All the truly unconscionable poo poo like REGISTER_GLOBALS has been gone for some time now. Well, yeah it's workable. Obviously. Existing sites use it and new things are developed in it. What it boils down to is that the answer to the question "Should I use PHP for new project X?" is always: No.* * Unless you only know PHP, and you absolutely can't learn something new or if your existing environment forces it upon you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Lightning Zwei posted:So I've been messing around with Ruby/Rails, Python/Django, and asp.net MVC for the past few days and I've decided to stick with asp.net MVC for the time being. I may be an idiot but the learning curve with Ruby seems insane, especially having no prior web development experience. I don't want to be messing around with a command line while I'm still just starting to understand POST and GET. MVC makes more sense to me after working with Visual Studio C++ and JCreator IDE's. Are there Ruby IDE's(clearly I don't get it)? PyCharm for Python/Django, and while I haven't used it, there's RubyMine from the same developers for Ruby. Honestly, for a lot of stuff the command line is easier than the IDE, but whatever floats your boat. To be honest, with your background and if you're still interested in learning something new and we're choosing between Ruby/Rails and Python/Django, I think you'd get on best with Python/Django/PyCharm. That trio offers the most handholding à la Visual Studio. I also wonder if you're not starting off on too complex of a project. Maybe do Python/Django and a small twitter clone. That should be possible to learn and do in Django in...I dunno...10 or 20 hours? I don't really know on those numbers, but it would be easy for someone who already knows how to program anything. Actually, on second thought, if you're coming from languages like C++, you may have a hard time grasping the true nature of languages like Python without some more fundamental instruction than you'll receive in the tutorials for Rails or Django, and you may want to try something like How To Think Like A Computer Scientist: Think Python, before you step up to doing Django.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Hey, W3C, lets make HTML/CSS even shittier. When I decided to start working on web stuff I spent a few days learning HTML/CSS and DOM stuff and thought "wow, this sure is a lovely system. Well, maybe it's because I'm not as fluent in it yet as I am with the handful of programming languages/frameworks/thingys I think are really nice. I'll give it more time." Couple years later: "No, this is poo poo." Glad to see the W3C is keeping it up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Authentic You posted:Can someone please explain the appeal and goodness of Bootstrap? Namely the base CSS. Because I don't get it. Maybe we're just doing it wrong, but I dunno. It lets you churn out a decent site fast. Especially for developers who aren't mainly front-end web developers. However, I also think you are probably judging it based upon a poorly done implementation of a Bootstrap site, coupled with a lack of familiarity with the way Bootstrap works.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 17:11
|
|
' It was all Bootstrap classes. I guess I thought Bootstrap CSS was a more low-level thing that took care of resetting/formatting all that annoying poo poo that takes forever to do from scratch on each project (like buttons and horizontal menus), but after having dealt with it for the last couple weeks, I've found it to be incredibly overbearing and hard to modify. The back-end developer (who built the UI and did the front-end stuff before I came along) ended up implementing a bunch of weird hacks to work around some Bootstrap styling issues, which ended up causing even more bugs. When I coded up a new feature, I ended up jettisoning pretty much all the Bootstrap markup and just writing new CSS. And we have a Bootstrap-based form where the two columns of labels/fields merge into each other and overlap if the browser window gets too small, rather than wrap around and stack. I don't know if this is just poor implementation of Bootstrap or what, but ugh.
|
Facebook uses PHP.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I've just done a bit of this for a contract. It was fine. PHP has always been fine (well, save for the famous HOLY poo poo WHAT WERE THEY THINKING stuff e.g. register_globals). I would never make it my full-time job, nor do I see a reason to actually choose it over anything else, but people keep acting like they'll catch cooties if they even open up a PHP file. It's still made up of if statements and function calls and poo poo, you're going to live through it. It's not even that weird a language. You want to see some poo poo, try ColdFusion or AppleScript. The only reason people act like they'll get cooties is because there's like 2500:1 PHP developers versus other developers all over the internet. So, when someone says HOW I MAEK WEB SITEZ, PHP inevitably gets recommended. It's like...yes, I can use this to build a house:  (I swear I didn't go searching for a PHP hammer, I just did an image search for "lovely hammer") But why when I can use this or a dozen other high-quality hammers?  Or even this?  If you know better and yet everywhere you go people go "USE A lovely HAMMER", most people are going to (quite reasonably) stop saying "That is a recommendation that can get you a great house, however you may want to check out these other options if your use case will allow you to move away from the PHP double-clawed hammer" and start going "gently caress you to hell for even mentioning PHP".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Look in to openshift. I'd say more, but my phone is being dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
I switched to Ubuntu a year or two ago just to ease dev work. It's been pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:That's what I was hoping to hear. Is this supposed to be a springboard to learning more backend stuff, or do you just want the easiest way to get this done?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Can anyone give a definitive answer as to why (or even if) PostgreSQL is better than MySQL? It seems a lot of people just say it is without any kind of substance behind why. Ask in the SQL or general programming threads.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Ask in the general programming questions thread. (where you'll get more/better answers, which is good because I want to know what the answer(s) are)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
I'm revamping the UI on my movie trailers site to use a "card"-based UI (à la Google+) and I'm trying to decide between delivering full pages from the server, loading HTML snippets for each card from the server, or just building the HTML for each card by downloading the data via my API and building the view with JS. In the simplest case I'd just deliver full pages, but I'm planning on having lots of filtering (different dates, keyword searches, etc) and viewtype (compact cards, expanded cards, lists, etc) options, and I think it'd be slick to not do page reloads for these types of things. I could deliver HTML snippets, but I got to thinking if I'm going to do that, I might consider just using my already existing API. One of the things that makes me hesitate about using the API is that I'm offering public API access via API keys (so I can rate limit API users who need it), and I don't know of any way to access my API via in-browser JS without someone being able to do a simple View Source and see the API key I'm using for public web site views. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:How are you building your API? Are you using a back-end framework? I can do whatever. Right now I'm using django-rest-framework.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Two brief observations: Thanks. I'm rewriting the all of the HTML currently. What's up there now is just the first quick iteration, and I don't like it and neither does anyone else. So I'm changing it completely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
caiman posted:I have a "how stuff works" type question about browsers and website resources. Google is failing me. Question: when I visit a website, my browser requests the resources (html file, css, images, js, etc) from the server. The server sends a response back and my browser renders the resources as appropriate. At this point, WHERE ARE the resources I'm looking at stored? For example, I visit https://www.somethingawful.com and the grenade logo is rendered - at this point where is my browser reading this image file from? It had to be transferred from the server to my computer, so does the file actually reside on my local machine somewhere? If it actually resides on my local computer, then why is right click --> Save As something entirely different from what's already happened? If it doesn't reside locally, then what's actually occurring as it's loading in my browser? As mentioned it will vary between browsers, but if you're looking at anything on your screen (browser or not) the data for that is in RAM on your computer and, optionally, stored in a file somewhere on your hard drive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
kedo posted:Looks like that might do the trick! Thanks! Well, it's a very simple thing to whip up in any of the popular web frameworks out there (Rails, Flask, Django, etc)...but you have to know the framework to do it. It's worth the effort to learn any of them...IIRC, Flask has the simplest getting started tutorial.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
As I've posted in this thread many times, you can write fine code in PHP. It's just that there's no reason to pick PHP outside of external factors like it's what your boss wants, your infrastructure only supports it, you want to write WP plugins, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Isn't that kinda how Django works, maybe? I know it assigns HTML "objects" to stuff in the database. Or is that different? You really need to go through that Django tutorial a few more times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Well, if the theory that people are dropping XP is true, then it could be that they used Chrome on XP and when they switched to a newer operating system they didn't bother to go back because, while it still sucks, newer versions of IE are better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
You can probably do this with HTTrack.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
PyCharm also work great with CoffeeScript. Just write CS. It automatically transpiles it to JS. Your pages work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What does Grunt have that CodeKit doesn't? What does it do better? In fact, what about Grunt in general makes it better than CodeKit or other programs? Isn't Grunt specifically for Javascript? I know you're using PyCharm and it should be noted that it already does a large part of what CodeKit or Grunt does. Except you're using the free version, so I'm not sure how much that limits it in this regard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I've been thinking that I might just stick with web dev after all. It makes the most sense to me compared to everything else. Thing is, though, I don't really know what to do next. What should I learn to really make myself competitive? I know the very basics and I can at least deploy a rudimentary website onto Heroku, but the next steps to take kind of escape me. Make something. Think of something you like and make a web app dealing with that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I certainly learned a lot by tinkering around by myself, yeah. But there's a point where I need structure to get any farther. I just don't have very good self-discipline, sense of structure or executive functions Don't just tinker around. Come up with an idea and carry it through to completion. Tinkering around is great and all and will teach you about disparate parts, but the hard part is taking an idea from inception to completion. Note that on these very forums, I've espoused the virtues of trying lots of different things without worrying about making a complete project ready for the world, but that's not instead of actually completing anything. So, maybe you decide this JS game is what you want to make a complete project out of. Buckle down and do it. If you really have to have someone tell you what to make, I hereby tell you to make this JS game you're thinking about.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 01:21
|
|
Even something easy like "I want you to make me this" from someone else is enough to get me going. There's only so much I need, and I've never been the type to really want for much.