www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Taunting

reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
May 21 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual 
video file?

Thank you.
May 21 2009
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
grauzone escribi:

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 
 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual 
 video file?
 
 Thank you.


Awww, but that made the tauting much better. :-(

http://downloads.dsource.org/projects/descent/taunting.mp4
May 21 2009
parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:


 grauzone escribi:

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 
 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual 
 video file?
 
 Thank you.


 
 Awww, but that made the tauting much better. :-(
 
 http://downloads.dsource.org/projects/descent/taunting.mp4


Nice! When do we get that feature? :)
May 21 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
"grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message 
news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual 
 video file?

 Thank you.


Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?
download youtube video
May 22 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Saaa wrote:

 "grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message 
 news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual 
 video file?

 Thank you.


 
 Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?


Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript 
enabled browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially 
if the media player works _much_better_.


 download youtube video 


Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google 
forces users to install Flash.
May 22 2009
next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
grauzone, el 22 de mayo a las 15:41 me escribiste:

 Saaa wrote:

"grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message
news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

Ary Borenszweig wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual video
file?

Thank you.


Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?


 
 Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
 No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript enabled
browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially if the 
 media player works _much_better_.
 

download youtube video 


 
 Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google forces
users to install Flash.


FYI, there are several programs that can "extract" videos from video
uploading websites. These are the ones I found packed for Debian:

clive - video extraction utility for YouTube, Google Video and others
metacafe-dl - download videos from metacafe.com
nicovideo-dl - Download videos from www.nicovideo.jp
youtube-dl - download videos from youtube.com

You probably need a flash video player, though (mplayer can play flash
videos).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sus descipulos se miraron, sin entender unos a otros y uno levantó su
manito y le dijo: Peperino, Peperino, soy Antonito de capital: y tengo
un salvavidas... a lo que Peperino, lo miró, lo tocó, lo frotó y lo
sanó. Y todos dijeron: ehhh! Peperino se la come! Peperino se la come!
	-- Peperino Pómoro
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Saaa wrote:

 "grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message
 news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an
 actual video file?

 Thank you.


 Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?


 
 Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
 No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript
 enabled browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially
 if the media player works _much_better_.


Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to
prove you wrong.  :P

To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV
is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.

It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5
could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on that.


 download youtube video 


 
 Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google
 forces users to install Flash.


Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.

Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's
PCs or learn to live with it.  :P

  -- Daniel
May 22 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Saaa wrote:

 "grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message
 news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an
 actual video file?

 Thank you.


 Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?


 Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
 No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript
 enabled browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially
 if the media player works _much_better_.


 
 Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to
 prove you wrong.  :P


They just don't know it better. They probably think their PC isn't fast 
enough for fullscreen video playback and so on.

Maybe they don't even know what's making their web browsers / websites 
so slow. And what component is responsible for playing ads with SOUND.


 To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV
 is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.
 
 It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5
 could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on that.


There's no technical reason why YouTube couldn't provide a download link 
for the hidden flv/mp4 file the flash player loads. Actually, there 
_was_ one video, where YouTube provided a direct link, but that was an 
exception.

In fact, hiding the link to the actual video file seems to be some kind 
of "soft DRM". Like all almost kinds of DRM, it's breakable, but it 
requires an effort > 0. I don't want to support this.

(And for video sites like YouTube, I'm not actually missing anything.)


 download youtube video 


 Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google
 forces users to install Flash.


 
 Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
 stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.


Firefox had tremendous success as IE replacement.

If you want to go that far, Flash had success as Java replacement.

Anyway, I'm not really fond of the idea of foreign, unknown programs 
running in my web browser. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. At 
least from the security point of view.


 Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's
 PCs or learn to live with it.  :P


There are dozens of open source video players. Projects like ffmpeg 
provide good backends for audio/video decoding. And I think even the 
builtin Windows Media Player can play mp4.


   -- Daniel
May 22 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to
 prove you wrong.  :P


 
 They just don't know it better. They probably think their PC isn't fast
 enough for fullscreen video playback and so on.
 
 Maybe they don't even know what's making their web browsers / websites
 so slow. And what component is responsible for playing ads with SOUND.


Perhaps, but they DO have Flash installed in a JavaScript-enabled
browser.  And anyway, there are always going to be lemmings who think
the internet is called "Explorer" and that removing Windows is illegal.


 To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV
 is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.

 It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5
 could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on
 that.


 
 There's no technical reason why YouTube couldn't provide a download link
 for the hidden flv/mp4 file the flash player loads. Actually, there
 _was_ one video, where YouTube provided a direct link, but that was an
 exception.
 
 In fact, hiding the link to the actual video file seems to be some kind
 of "soft DRM". Like all almost kinds of DRM, it's breakable, but it
 requires an effort > 0. I don't want to support this.


Maybe for ad revenue?  At least, I *think* YouTube has ads.  I have
AdBlock installed, so it's hard to tell...


 (And for video sites like YouTube, I'm not actually missing anything.)


Suit yourself, but it's not all garbage.


 download youtube video 


 Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google
 forces users to install Flash.


 Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
 stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.


 
 Firefox had tremendous success as IE replacement.
 
 If you want to go that far, Flash had success as Java replacement.


Firefox didn't get to where it is because of hate.  It got there because
a lot of people worked VERY hard to push it into the public
consciousness.  Lots of advertising and word-of-mouth.

Flash got to where it is because it let people watch shiny animations.
Doing animations in Java is non-trivial because it's a programming
language, not a content authoring system.  Flash had a really easy to
use editor and a small runtime download.

You can't get rid of Flash by loudly shouting "you should all stop using
it because it sucks, and you can't replace it with anything so you have
to stop watching all those funny LOLCAT videos you love so much."

People will hate you for telling them they're not allowed to watch
humorous videos of cats because "I don't like Flash."


 Anyway, I'm not really fond of the idea of foreign, unknown programs
 running in my web browser. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. At
 least from the security point of view.


I don't think you can avoid it.  Let's say we could excise the plugin
APIs from every browser tomorrow.  I guarantee you that someone will
release a new browser with a badly thought-out plugin API the day after.
 Not long after that, someone will write the new "must have" plugin, and
then it'll start all over again.

What's the old saying?  All programs expand until they can read mail?
s/read mail/be arbitrarily extended/.


 Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's
 PCs or learn to live with it.  :P


 
 There are dozens of open source video players. Projects like ffmpeg
 provide good backends for audio/video decoding. And I think even the
 builtin Windows Media Player can play mp4.
 

   -- Daniel




Those aren't a replacement and you know it.  If using standalone players
worked, Flash wouldn't exist today.

People will always prefer being able to see a video in their browser
over having to launch an external application.  I've seen people use
truly horrific embedded players even when a "use an external
application" option WAS provided.

And people will continue to use Flash as long as producers keep using
it.  And they'll keep using it so long as it's the only system with near
complete ubiquity.  You post video in any other format, and you CANNOT
be reasonably certain your viewer can see it.

Incidentally, you say ffmpeg is good, but I suspect that most of the
actually *useful* parts of it are illegal.  And hell, there's still the
odd video file that I just can't get to play because it's using the
latest version of Quicktime or WMV or something.

I still remember having to install Windows Media Player, Apple Quicktime
*and* RealPlayer just to have a reasonable chance of watching anything
on the net.  And even then, you had an out-of-date version 90% of the time.

As an actual user, I *prefer* there being a single, ubiquitous format
that I can view almost anywhere.  The last thing I want to do is return
to the hell of a million different, incompatible formats each requiring
their own player software.

The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:

1. HTML5 is standardised with at least one free video codec that's
competitive with VP3 and MP4.  This will probably require Theora and
Dirac to get up to speed FAST.

2. HTML5's video and audio elements have to be supported by IE.

3. Someone needs to come up with a way of building SVG animations with
sound, video and interactivity that is competitive with Flash and
doesn't suck.  I don't hold much hope of the OSS community being capable
of this one.

4. There will have to be a massive, coordinated and *sustained*
marketing effort to make HTML5 cooler than Flash.  The success of
Firefox gives me some hope this could be done.

Simply complaining about Flash will not get any of the above done.
May 22 2009
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
 ...


5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
May 22 2009
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
 ...


 
 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).


Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.
May 23 2009
parent reply naryl <cy ngs.ru> writes:
Daniel Keep Wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
 ...


 
 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).


 
 Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.


What about JavaFX?
May 23 2009
parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
naryl wrote:

 Daniel Keep Wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
 ...


 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).


 Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.


 
 What about JavaFX?


Yeah, I doubt that's going to go anywhere.  They're basically Java
Applets 2.0, with all the same problems.

Namely Flash still has better tools.  Hell, Silverlight has better tools.

That and the fact that although I know that JavaFX exists, I can't
recall ever seeing it used.  Or promoted.  Or, really advertised in any
way whatsoever apart from the infrequent Ars or Slashdot post about how
it's competing with AIR and Silverlight.

Oddly, I think JavaFX is the only one of the current set of "zomg web on
tha desktawp!" runtimes that doesn't work on Linux.  Rather perplexing
when you think back to Sun's "write once, run anywhere" rhetoric...
May 23 2009
prev sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Yeah, people will continue using that crap because it works reasonably 
well. Doesn't mean I have to like it. And I fear that all replacements 
for Flash will suck at least as much as Flash itself does.

The real problem is that web sites are turning into programs. A web site 
used to be just formatted text, but now many sites are completely 
unusable with Java Script disabled. Many even require Flash and work 
only with major browsers. I guess that's what they call "evolution" (yay 
Web 2.0). And of course, there will be lots of people who'll disagree 
with me that it's a bad thing.

Even the video tag you mentioned is not attractive for the typical web 
site designer, because they won't want to give up control over certain 
aspects of the video player GUI.

I don't think the "web sites are programs" idea will go away. Maybe it 
will get slightly less obnoxious as technology advances (lol advance 
they call this!), but it won't go away.

Now the "grumpy old man" attitude won't bring me anywhere. That leaves 
me as a user who doesn't have the Flash plugin installed (OH NO!), and 
I'll just keep asking people asking to provide a useable alternative, 
when they post such AJAX'ed and Flash'ed links .

(Until some time ago, I could barely play YouTube videos in the Flash 
player, because it was too slow. My media player could play the same 
video even at fullscreen, and it didn't even use all of my CPU. That's 
why I finally uninstalled Flash.)


 In fact, hiding the link to the actual video file seems to be some kind
 of "soft DRM". Like all almost kinds of DRM, it's breakable, but it
 requires an effort > 0. I don't want to support this.




PS: if circumventing DRM is illegal in your country, you're fucked.


 Maybe for ad revenue?  At least, I *think* YouTube has ads.  I have
 AdBlock installed, so it's hard to tell...


I don't know either...

Isn't YouTube one of these Web 2.0 sites, where nobody actually knows 
yet, whether you can make money with it?

Anyway, YouTube _does_ _not_ want users to download videos. It's 
probably only a question of time, until downloader tools stop working, 
because it requires too much effort circumventing the soft DRM.
May 23 2009
prev sibling parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
I watch mit and stanford courses on youtube.
I used to download (torrent) them but watching them on youtube just is loads 
easier/faster.
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gv6ddk$1kon$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 Saaa wrote:

 "grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message
 news:gv4p44$1jq7$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an
 actual video file?

 Thank you.


 Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?


 Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
 No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript
 enabled browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially
 if the media player works _much_better_.


 Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to
 prove you wrong.  :P

 To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV
 is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.

 It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5
 could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on 
 that.


 download youtube video


 Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google
 forces users to install Flash.


 Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
 stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.

 Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's
 PCs or learn to live with it.  :P


Ok, so there's a lot retarded lemmings running around believing youtube 
isn't an absolute abomination to the web. And people like us who ARE capable 
of knowing better have a responsibility do whatever we can (even if it's 
nothing more than complain) to NOT help encourage such F%^& stupidity. 
Bottom line is, Flash (ok, at least most uses of it, not all), and 
especially flash-embedded video, needs to die. Throwing our hands into the 
air and exclaiming "Gee, it's too hard to make that happen!" and blindly 
joining the masses of lemmings has got to be the absolute stupidest most 
self-defeating and downright irresponsible response to such a situation I've 
ever seen.

"Enron/MS/Apple/whatever is screwing us over! Let's just shut up and learn 
to live with it!"
May 22 2009
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gv6ddk$1kon$1 digitalmars.com...

 
 Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
 stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.

 Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's
 PCs or learn to live with it.  :P


 
 Ok, so there's a lot retarded lemmings running around believing youtube 
 isn't an absolute abomination to the web. And people like us who ARE capable 
 of knowing better have a responsibility do whatever we can (even if it's 
 nothing more than complain) to NOT help encourage such F%^& stupidity. 
 Bottom line is, Flash (ok, at least most uses of it, not all), and 
 especially flash-embedded video, needs to die. Throwing our hands into the 
 air and exclaiming "Gee, it's too hard to make that happen!" and blindly 
 joining the masses of lemmings has got to be the absolute stupidest most 
 self-defeating and downright irresponsible response to such a situation I've 
 ever seen.
 
 "Enron/MS/Apple/whatever is screwing us over! Let's just shut up and learn 
 to live with it!"


And your response is one of the most over-reactionary I've seen.

There's a difference between doing nothing and not doing anything useful.

I advocate, where I can, not using Flash.  I try to let people know that
having a site depend on JavaScript is stupid.  I tell people to develop
sites in vanilla HTML and then add JS and Flash if they want to
optionally enhance the site, not to make it require them.

I also upload stuff to the likes of Google Video and Youtube when I want
to share video because I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend the
real world doesn't exist.

When there is a viable alternative, I'll use that.  But there isn't.
You want to change that?  Grab the Mozilla source and start making
patches to improve the HTML5 video support.  Write a plugin for IE that
adds support for the video element.  Create an easy to use GUI that
transcodes from any format into Theora and then helps you upload it.

Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option
available to them and offer nothing in return.
May 23 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gv890t$1rji$1 digitalmars.com...

 Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option
 available to them and offer nothing in return.


That's just it, it's far from the best option, particularly among a group of 
programmers.
May 23 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gv8go0$28ke$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gv890t$1rji$1 digitalmars.com...

 Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option
 available to them and offer nothing in return.


 That's just it, it's far from the best option, particularly among a group 
 of programmers.


Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the chances of 
something better from getting started or getting widely adopted.
May 23 2009
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the
 chances of something better from getting started or getting widely
 adopted.


chicken and egg. Until something better comes along, people who *need* to 
run video in a web page right now will use youtube and flash because it works. 
Yeah, it might suck, but what else /can/ they do?
May 23 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff63ac8cba9af2cc64950 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the
 chances of something better from getting started or getting widely
 adopted.


 chicken and egg. Until something better comes along, people who *need* to 
 run video in a web page right now will use youtube and flash because it 
 works. Yeah, it might suck, but what else /can/ they do?


It's difficult to imagine that that's something that anyone would actually 
*need*, but what they can do is additionally provide a non-youtube/flash 
version. Which should be really f^&*^&* easy since they had to have already 
had one in order to upload it to craptube in the first place.
May 23 2009
next sibling parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 It's difficult to imagine that that's something that anyone would actually
 *need*, but what they can do is additionally provide a non-youtube/flash 
 version. Which should be really f^&*^&* easy since they had to have 
 already had one in order to upload it to craptube in the first place.


Add a link to some download service you mean, bandwidth wise.
I just use the flash plug-in + noscript.
May 23 2009
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.


If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting 
or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
May 23 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.




Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)


 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting 
 or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.


1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good 
hosting packages are these days, I find it hard to believe that, out of a 
group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't have 
reasonable hosting. I mean look at me, I can't afford basic airfare to go to 
a conference (or any of the repairs that my car currently needs), but I 
still have a gig or so of hosted space and about 100x as much bandwidth as 
I'm actually using.

2. Torrent
May 23 2009
next sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4 news.digitalmars.com...
 

 Hello Nick,
 

 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy
 since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube
 in
 the first place.




 Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)
 


And you just proved that not showing something sometimes makes a bigger point 
than showing it <g>


 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file
 hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
 


 1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good
 hosting packages are these days,


a.k.a. almost but /not/ free.


 I find it hard to believe that, out
 of a group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't
 have reasonable hosting.


I don't because I can't afford it.


 I mean look at me, I can't afford basic
 airfare to go to a conference (or any of the repairs that my car
 currently needs), but I still have a gig or so of hosted space and
 about 100x as much bandwidth as I'm actually using.


The cheapest hosting package I've seen would be about 15-25% of my income 
after expenses; food, rent, power (to run my Intel brand heaters), tuition.


 2. Torrent


For me that is even less accessible. I don't have a torrent client because 
I'd have to be rude: http://xkcd.com/553/

Torrents has the problem that many places need to throttle them to let other 
stuff thought and for torrents, the only way to throttle them is ban and 
block them completely like my university tries to do.
May 23 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d82e4 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.




 Ha ha, you censored the "f^&*^&*"? :)


 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting
 or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.


 1. Sure, some people may not, but considering how cheap and easy good
 hosting packages are these days, I find it hard to believe that, out of a
 group of programmers, any more than a small minority wouldn't have
 reasonable hosting. I mean look at me, I can't afford basic airfare to go to
 a conference (or any of the repairs that my car currently needs), but I
 still have a gig or so of hosted space and about 100x as much bandwidth as
 I'm actually using.


Or, you know, maybe we could stop reading so much into Ary's
_completely understandable decision_ to host a short video on _the
largest video hosting site in the world_.

Give me a break.  You guys act like it's a fucking affront to your
religion to have to use Flash or Youtube.
May 23 2009
parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 Give me a break.  You guys act like it's a fucking affront to your
 religion to have to use Flash or Youtube.


Sorry for complaining about the necessity to be forced to install an 
annoying, crappy, utterly obnoxious plugin like Flash, that barely adds 
functionality to anything, but instead makes everything slower, harder 
to use, and you have to figure out things like disabling sounds and 
tracking Flash cookies. It has some nice additional security holes too. 
(Oh my, is that what the Internet has become...?)
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
BCS escribi:

 Hello Nick,
 

 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.


 
 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting 
 or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.


Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in 
particular.

I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can 
comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I 
can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my 
profile and my other videos.

And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or 
Javascript either.

Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts 
and links".

"No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript 
enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash. 
  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most 
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?

(I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use 
"javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some 
cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)
May 23 2009
next sibling parent reply Charles Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 BCS escribi:

 Hello Nick,


 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.


 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file 
 hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.


 
 Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in 
 particular.
 
 I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can 
 comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I 
 can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my 
 profile and my other videos.
 
 And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or 
 Javascript either.
 
 Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts 
 and links".
 
 "No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript 
 enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash. 
  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most 
 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
 
 (I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use 
 "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some 
 cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)


FWIW:
The last time I found a version of flash that would work with my 
browser, it came with an EULA that I found unacceptable.  So I didn't 
install it, and stopped looking.  I don't really like JavaScript, 
because I consider sites that require it to be less secure than sites 
that don't require it.  (I also don't run HTML on my e-mail except when 
I can both a) verify that it's needed and b) trust the sender.  Which 
includes some way of verifying that the e-mail is from whom it purports 
to be from.)

I acknowledge that mine is a minority position, but it's MY position, 
and it's not likely to change.  If somebody (anonymous) sends me a 
postcard, I junk it without checking further.  Ditto for an e-postcard. 
  My general belief is that if something is only available in flash, it 
probably isn't worth looking at, and it almost certainly isn't worth the 
added vulnerability that having flash installed would create.

Receiving text messages from anonymous strangers only risks wasting my 
time, not corrupting my system.  Javascript starts to get a bit iffy. 
Flash is beyond the pale.  (It's not *THAT* dangerous from a system 
point of view.  I could run it as an unprivileged user from a separate 
account, with flash only being installed in that account, but that 
wouldn't solve the legal vulnerabilities created by the EULA, and it 
would be a real pain to bother using it.)

Perhaps the recent EULAs have changed.  But I have sufficient doubts 
that I haven't bothered checking.
May 23 2009
parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Charles Hixson escribi:

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 BCS escribi:

 Hello Nick,


 what they can do is additionally provide a
 non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
 they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
 the first place.


 If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file 
 hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.


 Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in 
 particular.

 I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can 
 comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And 
 I can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my 
 profile and my other videos.

 And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or 
 Javascript either.

 Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts 
 and links".

 "No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript 
 enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install 
 Flash.  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working 
 in most browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?

 (I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use 
 "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some 
 cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)


 
 FWIW:
 The last time I found a version of flash that would work with my 
 browser, it came with an EULA that I found unacceptable.  So I didn't 
 install it, and stopped looking.  I don't really like JavaScript, 
 because I consider sites that require it to be less secure than sites 
 that don't require it.  (I also don't run HTML on my e-mail except when 
 I can both a) verify that it's needed and b) trust the sender.  Which 
 includes some way of verifying that the e-mail is from whom it purports 
 to be from.)
 
 I acknowledge that mine is a minority position, but it's MY position, 
 and it's not likely to change.  If somebody (anonymous) sends me a 
 postcard, I junk it without checking further.  Ditto for an e-postcard. 
  My general belief is that if something is only available in flash, it 
 probably isn't worth looking at, and it almost certainly isn't worth the 
 added vulnerability that having flash installed would create.
 
 Receiving text messages from anonymous strangers only risks wasting my 
 time, not corrupting my system.  Javascript starts to get a bit iffy. 
 Flash is beyond the pale.  (It's not *THAT* dangerous from a system 
 point of view.  I could run it as an unprivileged user from a separate 
 account, with flash only being installed in that account, but that 
 wouldn't solve the legal vulnerabilities created by the EULA, and it 
 would be a real pain to bother using it.)
 
 Perhaps the recent EULAs have changed.  But I have sufficient doubts 
 that I haven't bothered checking.


Wow! Someone reads EULAs. :-P
May 23 2009
prev sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable 
JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided 
without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff 
like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take 
YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The 
simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only 
introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A 
related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, 
that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using 
AJAX.

For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than 
with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but 
AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow 
to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs 
even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no 
downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)

They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

/rant (I feel better now.)
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message 
news:gvbr5u$1671$1 digitalmars.com...

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable JS. 
 Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided 
 without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff like 
 replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take YouTube. 
 It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The simplest 
 things don't work anymore. What for?

 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And occasionally, 
 they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only introduce 
 artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A related 
 example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, that 
 contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.

 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than with 
 good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but AJAX is 
 hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow to reload 
 the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs even require a 
 webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no downloadable 
 documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)

 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

 /rant (I feel better now.)


Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.

To add a little though, grauzone says "You know, Win 3.11 feels faster." My 
486 Win 3.11 machine *was* faster (not in terms of raw operations per second 
of course, but in terms of responsiveness.) My machine has a clockspeed in 
the GHz range, RAM in the GB range, and basic text entry in my browser 
frequently lags by at least a second. WTF? My 486/Win3.11 machine never did 
that! Hell, my Apple IIc never did that.

About 5-10 years ago, it was common, standard practice to design web pages 
so that they didn't take any more than about a couple seconds to load. But 
now, most of the pages on the web easily take about 5-10 seconds or more, 
and nobody seems to give a shit. In fact, I just timed how long it takes to 
load the main page of Tango's 0.9.9.8 API docs: it took a full 19 seconds. I 
timed it again with JS disabled: 2 seconds. I don't see how anyone can 
consider anything remotely that bad to be at all acceptable, particularly 
considering that the JS version does absolutely nothing that can't be 
reasonably done without JS (except for the folding/unfolding of the tree 
nodes, but you know, whoop-dee-f&^%ing-doo. I'm pretty sure I can live 
without that).

And then there's those modal in-page popups... You know, there was a time 
when people were aware that popups were bad. But hell, make them modal (ie, 
cause them to render the underlying page completely unresponsive) and stick 
them inside the page, and all of a sudden they're great! (/sarcasm, of 
course).

DHTML and Flash *are* the new 
blinks/marquees/animating-GIFs/embedded-sounds, but with two additional 
drawbacks: 1. There's no longer anyone on the web intelligent enough to 
recognize the *exact same* obnoxiousness problems that led to the downfall 
of the those 90's-web abominations, and 2. They're orders of magnitude 
slower (and don't get me started on Chrome or Opera). Sure, unlike the old 
90's-web abominations, they do have a *few* good uses. But that in 
absolutely no way excuses the bad stuff. And, (and here's the real 
clincher), since I obviously can't enforce proper design on the web, the one 
thing I *can* do is just simply disable that shit. So I do. And as you can 
already tell, I'm far from the only one.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gvc4kc$29bd$1 digitalmars.com...

 And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce 
 proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable 
 that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from the only 
 one.


Oh, yea, and *I'm* the one who catches flack for that, instead of the people 
that are actually making those garbage designs in the first place, just 
because *I'm* not complacent enough to roll over and take it like all the 
rest of the good little drones.

Which of course lead me to another thing...this modern society of "anyone 
who complains about anything is just simply being a problem", *grumble* 
*grumble*...
May 24 2009
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message=20
 news:gvc4kc$29bd$1 digitalmars.com...

 And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce=20
 proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disa=




ble=20

 that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from the only=




=20

 one.


=20
 Oh, yea, and *I'm* the one who catches flack for that, instead of the p=


eople=20

 that are actually making those garbage designs in the first place, just=


=20

 because *I'm* not complacent enough to roll over and take it like all t=


he=20

 rest of the good little drones.
=20
 Which of course lead me to another thing...this modern society of "anyo=


ne=20

 who complains about anything is just simply being a problem", *grumble*=


=20

 *grumble*...
=20


	FWIW I completely agree...

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:gvc4kc$29bd$1 digitalmars.com...

 And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce 
 proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable 
 that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from the only 
 one.




Definitely not. That led to the creation of Firefox extensions like 
NoScript. NoScript is one of the most popular extensions, along Adblock 
and (like I just found out) Video DownloadHelper to download videos from 
sites like YouTube.


 Oh, yea, and *I'm* the one who catches flack for that, instead of the people 
 that are actually making those garbage designs in the first place, just 
 because *I'm* not complacent enough to roll over and take it like all the 
 rest of the good little drones.


I guess many designers aren't really aware about how annoying those 
additional features are. They get obsessed over what is possible, and do 
stuff because they can. They should learn why there's this proverb "less 
is more"!


 Which of course lead me to another thing...this modern society of "anyone 
 who complains about anything is just simply being a problem", *grumble* 
 *grumble*...


*grumble* *grumble*
May 24 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message 
news:gvc6r3$2dmi$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:gvc4kc$29bd$1 digitalmars.com...

 And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce 
 proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply 
 disable that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from 
 the only one.




 Definitely not. That led to the creation of Firefox extensions like 
 NoScript. NoScript is one of the most popular extensions, along Adblock 
 and (like I just found out) Video DownloadHelper to download videos from 
 sites like YouTube.


Adblock is essential. Most ads have gotten so completely out-of-hand, I 
seriously wouldn't even be using the web anymore if it weren't for Adblock.

I've been meaning to try NoScript. Currently, I'm using QuickJava, which 
places a *very* convenient toggle button on the status bar that let's you 
turn JS on/off. But I've found there are some sites/pages where I need it to 
be off, and others I need it on, and QuickJava doesn't have a way of saving 
the settings on a site-by-site or page-by-page basis. So I'm constantly 
loading a particular page the wrong way. For instance, about half the time 
that I go to the Tango docs, I forget to turn JS off, and just because of 
that I have to wait nearly half a minute before I can correct the mistake or 
even switch to another tab (Why the stop button doesn't work on 
JS-processing is beyond me...).

IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it 
plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style 
functionality), because trying to configure sites/pages manually would be a 
major PITA and possibly not even be worth it.

And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it 
*only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't have 
the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I really 
want them.

But of course, these are all just clumbsy symptom-attacking hacks anyway, 
not real solutions. Plus there's the issue that the more extentions you're 
using, the slower FF gets... So at best you're just fixing one problem at 
the cost of another.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it
 plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style


It does, both.

 functionality), because trying to configure sites/pages manually would be 
 a major PITA and possibly not even be worth it.

 And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it 
 *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't 
 have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I 
 really want them.


Just use noscript for blocking flash

 But of course, these are all just clumbsy symptom-attacking hacks anyway, 
 not real solutions. Plus there's the issue that the more extentions you're 
 using, the slower FF gets... So at best you're just fixing one problem at 
 the cost of another.


Well actually, I think noscript is the solution.
In the period that new technologies are unfit for those who see their 
evilness, you can (partly) disable them until you think those technologies 
are that much better than the then 'new tech'.
May 24 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gvcb0n$2l9f$1 digitalmars.com...

 And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it 
 *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't 
 have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I 
 really want them.


 Just use noscript for blocking flash


I don't like the way it does it. FlashBlock gives me a box where the flash 
is, and when I do want to view it (and yes, *sometimes* I do), I can just 
click on it and it'll show. Unless noscript has changed since I last looked 
at it, it doesn't do anything like that, it's just all-or-nothing.
May 24 2009
parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it
 *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't 
 have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I 
 really want them.


 Just use noscript for blocking flash


 I don't like the way it does it. FlashBlock gives me a box where the flash 
 is, and when I do want to view it (and yes, *sometimes* I do), I can just 
 click on it and it'll show. Unless noscript has changed since I last 
 looked at it, it doesn't do anything like that, it's just all-or-nothing.


I think it has changed then :)
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 Adblock is essential. Most ads have gotten so completely out-of-hand, I 
 seriously wouldn't even be using the web anymore if it weren't for Adblock.


Definitely. It's also useful for blocking other obnoxious stuff like 
emoticons or avatars in those phpBB forums.


 IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it 
 plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style 


Yes, disabling site-by-site is a major feature of NoScript. NoScript 
places an icon on the status bar. Clicking that icon will show a pop up 
menu, where you can choose which scripts to enable (by site), and if you 
want to do it permanently. I don't know how it plays with QuickJava, 
Java applets, or Flash.

My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs 
containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some 
sort of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you 
can disable it.
May 24 2009
parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs 
 containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort 
 of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can 
 disable it.


As you can disable the reloading ;)
May 24 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Saaa wrote:

 My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs 
 containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort 
 of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can 
 disable it.


 As you can disable the reloading ;) 


Thanks.

And going over the options dialog, I noticed it can block Flash and 
Java, too.

Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is 
really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal 
firewalls".
May 24 2009
parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is 
 really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal 
 firewalls".


Selectively disabling, not so stupid I would think.

I like them firewalls, making me select who can send info about me and who 
can not.
Also most have additional program guards, which show me what a program is 
asking for.
They give a bit more insight into how programs work.

I mostly use the virusscanner because I don't trust java and friends.
May 24 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.


[...]

Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites 
out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were available.

The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how 
to make them (or there replacements) easy enough to use correctly and hard 
enough to use incorrectly that people don't abuse them through ignorance.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.


 [...]

 Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites 
 out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were 
 available.

 The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how 
 to make them (or there replacements) easy enough to use correctly and hard 
 enough to use incorrectly that people don't abuse them through ignorance.


I like how you can select the transcript text on TED's videos.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff641a8cbaa855554eb0c news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.


 [...]

 Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites 
 out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were 
 available.

 The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how 
 to make them (or there replacements) easy enough to use correctly and hard 
 enough to use incorrectly that people don't abuse them through ignorance.


Although I may often say things to the contrary, I don't actually advocate 
the outright elimination of JS or Flash world-wide (hell, I've even used 
them myself *where appropriate*).

But, the problem is, *most* of the uses of JS and Flash that are out there 
fall into the "bad" category. And because of that, I find that the tiny 
handful of good uses are just not enough to justify me keeping them enabled 
in my browser. And that *would* be perfectly fine, but literally about half 
of the web is broken/inaccessible when you have JS and Flash disabled, 
despite there being absolutely no good reason for that. And *that* is my 
real main complaint.
May 24 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gvcaph$2ktt$1 digitalmars.com...

 Although I may often say things to the contrary, I don't actually advocate 
 the outright elimination of JS or Flash world-wide (hell, I've even used 
 them myself *where appropriate*).


However, I *would* like to see JS and Flash replaced by equivilents that 
aren't so shitty from a development perspective. (ECMAScript 4 is a notable 
improvement though, but still...)
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 To add a little though, grauzone says "You know, Win 3.11 feels faster." My
 486 Win 3.11 machine *was* faster (not in terms of raw operations per second
 of course, but in terms of responsiveness.) My machine has a clockspeed in
 the GHz range, RAM in the GB range, and basic text entry in my browser
 frequently lags by at least a second. WTF? My 486/Win3.11 machine never did
 that! Hell, my Apple IIc never did that.

 About 5-10 years ago, it was common, standard practice to design web pages
 so that they didn't take any more than about a couple seconds to load. But
 now, most of the pages on the web easily take about 5-10 seconds or more,
 and nobody seems to give a shit. In fact, I just timed how long it takes to
 load the main page of Tango's 0.9.9.8 API docs: it took a full 19 seconds. I
 timed it again with JS disabled: 2 seconds. I don't see how anyone can
 consider anything remotely that bad to be at all acceptable, particularly
 considering that the JS version does absolutely nothing that can't be
 reasonably done without JS (except for the folding/unfolding of the tree
 nodes, but you know, whoop-dee-f&^%ing-doo. I'm pretty sure I can live
 without that).


I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
Javascript interpreter_ in your browser.  I have no idea what you're
talking about with text input lag.  I have never experienced that.
And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.

What browser are you *using*?
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
 Javascript interpreter_ in your browser.  I have no idea what you're
 talking about with text input lag.  I have never experienced that.
 And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.

 What browser are you *using*?


I have the same problem with the tango website an sich.
Goint to http://www.dsource.org/projects/ gives me a 5 to 10 second lag 
between showing 'loading projects' and actually showing them.
Latest FF
The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an 
exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of 
websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a 
second.
May 24 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gvcac0$2k6l$1 digitalmars.com...

 The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an 
 exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of 
 websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a 
 second.


Joystiq/Engadget/Etc are just as slow, if not moreso.
May 24 2009
parent "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gvcb23$2lgm$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gvcac0$2k6l$1 digitalmars.com...

 The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an 
 exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of 
 websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a 
 second.


 Joystiq/Engadget/Etc are just as slow, if not moreso.


As I said, the tango website is the slowest I know (and I do know joystiq, 
engadget and probably etc.)
I block most content on those so I think it is a good comparison as dsource 
doesn't use external sources (according to noscript).
May 24 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...

 I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
 Javascript interpreter_ in your browser.  I have no idea what you're
 talking about with text input lag.  I have never experienced that.
 And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.

 What browser are you *using*?


Oh I do have a notably slow JS interpreter (FF). But that's completely 
beside the point. A web page should be designed to work properly (and that 
includes responsiveness) on *any* major browser. Anything less is just plain 
irresponsible.

Also, what kind of computer do you have? Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I 
don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell, 
there's no excuse for responsive *web browsing* to require that kind of 
hardware.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...

 I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
 Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. =A0I have no idea what you're
 talking about with text input lag. =A0I have never experienced that.
 And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.

 What browser are you *using*?


 Oh I do have a notably slow JS interpreter (FF). But that's completely
 beside the point. A web page should be designed to work properly (and tha=


t

 includes responsiveness) on *any* major browser. Anything less is just pl=


ain

 irresponsible.

 Also, what kind of computer do you have? Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? =


I

 don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
 there's no excuse for responsive *web browsing* to require that kind of
 hardware.


I use Firefox too.  My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by
today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's running in 32-bit
mode.

And if you don't want to keep your hardware new enough to match the
demands of modern software, no matter how badly-engineered you deem
it, well, you'll always be bitching about how slow everything is.  If
you have usability issues, it's on your end.  I don't.  My computer,
and everything I access on the internet, are perfectly responsive.
Are you going to continue blaming everyone else, or are you just going
to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.


Where can I buy 12$ computers?
May 24 2009
parent reply Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone <none example.net> wrote:

 to get a new machine? =A0They're like $12 now.


 Where can I buy 12$ computers?


lern2hyperbole.
May 24 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone <none example.net> wrote:

 to get a new machine?  They're like $12 now.


 Where can I buy 12$ computers?


 
 lern2hyperbole.


Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really 
an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that 
website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are 
_definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 bit 
water cooled octa core.
May 24 2009
parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really 
 an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that 
 website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are 
 _definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 bit 
 water cooled octa core.


Just FYI, javascript is a lot slower on 64 bit, the engines are 
optimized for windows/x86-32.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.166.1243199156.13405.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 I use Firefox too.  My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by
 today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's running in 32-bit
 mode.


Umm, yea, any site/browser that needs an Athlon X2 64 4600+ to run properly 
is most definitely a piece of shit.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
 don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,


lol
May 24 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gvcdpg$2q8d$1 digitalmars.com...

 Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
 don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,


 lol


Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times I've 
seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing for just 
because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is people are 
*using*, not what the stores are selling.

Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on 
2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell 2008's 
anymore!!

It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how 
frequently people actually try to use it.
May 24 2009
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
 I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
 for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is
 people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.
 
 Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on
 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell
 2008's anymore!!
 
 It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how
 frequently people actually try to use it.


If I'm ever in a position to do it, I will spec the target platform for a 
program as something like the 20th percentile of computers used by our target 
market when the project is started. I'd get a bunch of system like that and 
then mandate that any prototypes be shown to management on one of them before 
it's shown on anything else and that the devs must run their code on them 
regularly.

I wouldn't have any problem with the program being able to take advantage 
of something a lot newer, but it darn well better run on those old boxes.
May 24 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff64568cbaad2fa3b96f0 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
 I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
 for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is
 people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.

 Should they stop offering brake-pads/spark-plugs/tires that work on
 2008-model cars? No? Well why not?! It's not like the stores sell
 2008's anymore!!

 It's a ridiculous line of reasoning made even more ridiculous by how
 frequently people actually try to use it.


 If I'm ever in a position to do it, I will spec the target platform for a 
 program as something like the 20th percentile of computers used by our 
 target market when the project is started. I'd get a bunch of system like 
 that and then mandate that any prototypes be shown to management on one of 
 them before it's shown on anything else and that the devs must run their 
 code on them regularly.

 I wouldn't have any problem with the program being able to take advantage 
 of something a lot newer, but it darn well better run on those old boxes.


I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much the 
opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote from 
"CliffyB" or any of the others...
May 24 2009
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much
 the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote
 from "CliffyB" or any of the others...
 


I'm sorry to disappoint, but gaming is the only case where building to the 
latest hardware has any rational justification. That said, build to scale 
all the way down is also a good idea, but I have no problem with games that 
use and need a nice system to run. Than again I'm not a gamer by any stretch.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 What browser are you *using*?


Firefox. But I often use Konqueror for "serious work" (!= entertainment, 
wasting time). With Konqueror, some sites become dead slow with Java 
Script enabled. Oh, and although Konqueror is a very nice browser, 
scripting often causes malfunctions. That all just shows how fragile the 
approach of running scripts inside the browser is. It's probably 
Konqueror's fault, but if JS weren't so complicated (I mean, it's a 
complete scripting language), this wouldn't be an issue. Lots of complex 
software = more failures and performance regressions.
May 24 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
grauzone escribi:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 
 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.


Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your 
web browser. So that's not a reason.

Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to 
reload the whole page again.


 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing.


Not if implemented correctly. See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all 
the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think 
Facebook does this too.

And

 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?


To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content 
appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make 
it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user 
that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 grauzone escribi:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.


 
 Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your 
 web browser. So that's not a reason.
 
 Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to 
 reload the whole page again.


That's true. But it wouldn't be so hard to find good alternatives to 
implement this. At least JS isn't inherently needed for this.

And whatever happened to frames? I guess they were too "ugly"?


 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing.


 
 Not if implemented correctly. See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all 
 the time, and back and forward buttons work as expected. I think 
 Facebook does this too.


Point is, it's hard to get right. With standard HTML, it's hard to _not_ 
get it right. That's the difference. Also, the AJAX method of using back 
buttons is likely to be buggy, even if "implemented correctly".


 And

 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?


 
 To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content 
 appear from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make 
 it appear sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user 
 that something is being created, and the trigger is that point.


But when I click on an element, I expect something to happen anyway. Oh, 
and I _don't_ want to wait for an animation. (Even if the animation is 
fast, or the animation doesn't block input, the user perceives a delay.)

On the contrary, most time I do _not_ want something to change, if I 
don't click it. And if it's something like updating data in real time, 
you don't need an animation either.

I can't remember even one situation, where a GUI animation was actually 
helpful.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Ary Borenszweig" <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:gvcehp$2rdf$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone escribi:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.


 Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your 
 web browser. So that's not a reason.


Yea, well, why add more?


 Also, Javascript makes some stuff faster because you don't have to reload 
 the whole page again.


In theory, sure.

Now in practice:

1. The JS still has to be parsed and executed. That takes time in addition 
to everything else the browser would normally be doing.

2. The time taken by all of the other useless crap the JS is often doing can 
easily overshadow the time for a few extra k of content.

3. A lot of times it'll even add extra trips to the server (and in many 
cases, a number of complete different servers/domains) because in addition 
to loading the main page and images, a lot of those AJAX-heads have decided 
they have to have a bunch of individual pieces of content downloaded 
individually by a script in the main page. That's a lot slower than just 
downloading it as part of the original page.

4. Like grauzone said, there are other ways to decrease the need for 
full-page reloads.


 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing.


 Not if implemented correctly.


And if JS and Flash were typically used correctly I wouldn't be complaining 
in the first place.

How often is AJAX actually implemented correctly? Certainly no more often 
than any other use of JS or Flash. And like grauzone said, it makes it far 
too difficult to actually get it right. I know from direct personal contact: 
the typical web developer is a lazy SOB. If it's hard for them to get 
something right (*IF* they even care about getting things right - and with 
web developers, that's rarely the case), then they're not going to bother to 
get it right. And surprise, surprise, most of them don't get it right.


 See Gmail, for example. It uses AJAX all the time, and back and forward 
 buttons work as expected. I think Facebook does this too.

 And

 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for?


 To show the user what just happened. If you just make some content appear 
 from nowhere, the user will not know what happened. If you make it appear 
 sliding from a particular point, then you are telling the user that 
 something is being created, and the trigger is that point.


That's more myth than truth. Users don't need those kinds of animations to 
know what's going on. And for the users that are unknowledgeable enough to 
not know what's going on without animations, they're certainly *not* going 
to understand the animations either. All they're going to understand is "Oh, 
look, there's colors and shapes moving around".

Seriously, I've sat and watched these people. Animations make FAR less 
difference, even with novices, than most people like to think. The only true 
purpose those sorts of animations serve is to *dazzle* people into opening 
their wallets. It's little more than a modern equivalent of those loud 
salesmen with greased hair and a tacky almost Liberace-esque suit, 
surrounded by banners and confetti, etc...

Additionally, even in a case where an animation would aid in understanding, 
it only needs to be a split-second. Probably about 250ms max. Anything 
longer than that (which accounts for the vast majority of such animations on 
the web...as well as DVD) and interface feels unresponsive.

Plus, particularly with JS, those animations are incredibly jerky. So even 
from a purely aesthetic point of view, they just look awful, and even 
unprofessional.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 
 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
 
 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable 
 JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be provided 
 without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and do stuff 
 like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime example take 
 YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life without AJAX! The 
 simplest things don't work anymore. What for?
 
 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They only 
 introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels faster.) A 
 related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" like boxes, 
 that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML subtree using 
 AJAX.
 
 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than 
 with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but 
 AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too slow 
 to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango docs 
 even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no 
 downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)
 
 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!
 
 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.
 
 /rant (I feel better now.)


Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P
May 28 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable 
 JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be 
 provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and 
 do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime 
 example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life 
 without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They 
 only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels 
 faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those "applet" 
 like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently loads a HTML 
 subtree using AJAX.

 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than 
 with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but 
 AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too 
 slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango 
 docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no 
 downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)

 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

 /rant (I feel better now.)


 
 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
 
 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 
 
 
 No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


Oh god... why...
May 28 2009
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to 
 enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't be 
 provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb and 
 do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a prime 
 example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a life 
 without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts of 
 practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They 
 only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels 
 faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those 
 "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently 
 loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.

 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse than 
 with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are "outdated", but 
 AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because we feel it's too 
 slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I wonder if the Tango 
 docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the reason why there's no 
 downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing here.)

 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

 /rant (I feel better now.)


 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 


 No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 
 Oh god... why...


*snip*

“The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window 
contains a smaller element, the user doesn’t need to load an entirely 
new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is 
e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve 
the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will 
annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal 
windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements 
that don’t need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting 
a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button 
of some sort.”

Because. ;)
May 28 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to 
 enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't 
 be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really dumb 
 and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As a 
 prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in a 
 life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts 
 of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They 
 only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels 
 faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those 
 "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently 
 loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.

 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse 
 than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are 
 "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because 
 we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I 
 wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the 
 reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm 
 blaming the wrong thing here.)

 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

 /rant (I feel better now.)


 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 


 No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh god... why...


 
 *snip*
 
 “The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window 
 contains a smaller element, the user doesn’t need to load an entirely 
 new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is 
 e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve 
 the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will 
 annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal 
 windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements 
 that don’t need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting 
 a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button 
 of some sort.”


Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.


 Because. ;)
May 28 2009
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pánek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?


 It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.

 When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by 
 default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to 
 enable JS. Now it's really rare to see functionality that couldn't 
 be provided without JS. Rather, web designers seem to be really 
 dumb and do stuff like replacing real links by script functions. As 
 a prime example take YouTube. It's like YouTube doesn't believe in 
 a life without AJAX! The simplest things don't work anymore. What for?

 About AJAX, you know it breaks the back button and all other sorts 
 of practical things you are used from normal web browsing. And 
 occasionally, they use it for animations. Animations what for? They 
 only introduce artificial GUI latency. (You know, Win 3.11 feels 
 faster.) A related example for annoying AJAX things are those 
 "applet" like boxes, that contain a "loading" gif, and apparently 
 loads a HTML subtree using AJAX.

 For completely over-engineered AJAX waste look at the Tango docs on 
 dsource. I mean, it emulates frames, and the end result is worse 
 than with good old frames! Ah yes, we all know frames are 
 "outdated", but AJAX is hip and new! Let's emulate frames, because 
 we feel it's too slow to reload the whole page again! (Now now, I 
 wonder if the Tango docs even require a webserver. Maybe that's the 
 reason why there's no downloadable documentation? But maybe I'm 
 blaming the wrong thing here.)

 They told use not to use <blink> or <marquee>? OK, we'll just use JS!

 Among the best uses of JS I've seen are snow flakes moved by a script.

 /rant (I feel better now.)


 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/ 


 No, I really don’t want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh god... why...


 *snip*

 “The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal 
 window contains a smaller element, the user doesn’t need to load an 
 entirely new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same 
 effect is e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, 
 you improve the usability of your website. Having to load pages over 
 and over will annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good 
 thing. Modal windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of 
 large elements that don’t need to be on the main page. For example, 
 rather than putting a full video on a page, you can just provide a 
 link, thumbnail or button of some sort.”


 
 Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.


Why? I don’t get it. Why is there so much hate and anger about it in the 
air? Srsly, this whole topic is just completely overrated. It’s just the 
internet. ffs man.
May 28 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Alexander Pnek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
news:gvm3qh$1ld9$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pnek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander Pnek wrote:

 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh god... why...


 *snip*

 "The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window 
 contains a smaller element, the user doesn't need to load an entirely 
 new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is 
 e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve 
 the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will 
 annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal 
 windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements 
 that don't need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting 
 a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button 
 of some sort."


 Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.


 Why? I don't get it. Why is there so much hate and anger about it in the 
 air? Srsly, this whole topic is just completely overrated. It's just the 
 internet. ffs man.


Because they're like pop-up windows, except they actually manage to be 
worse. Unlike traditional pop-ups, which are already bad enough:
- They're modal
- They aren't blocked by pop-up blocking software
- They sometimes include completely useless, interface-delaying animations.
May 28 2009
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Alexander P�nek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
 news:gvm3qh$1ld9$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander P�nek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander P�nek wrote:

 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh god... why...


 *snip*

 "The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal window 
 contains a smaller element, the user doesn't need to load an entirely 
 new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same effect is 
 e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, you improve 
 the usability of your website. Having to load pages over and over will 
 annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good thing. Modal 
 windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of large elements 
 that don't need to be on the main page. For example, rather than putting 
 a full video on a page, you can just provide a link, thumbnail or button 
 of some sort."


 Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.


 Why? I don't get it. Why is there so much hate and anger about it in the 
 air? Srsly, this whole topic is just completely overrated. It's just the 
 internet. ffs man.


 
 Because they're like pop-up windows, except they actually manage to be 
 worse. Unlike traditional pop-ups, which are already bad enough:
 - They're modal


Modal windows are modal, yes. That is certainly true.


 - They aren't blocked by pop-up blocking software


Because they are not pop-ups. They don’t open a seperate native window 
on your desktop or tab in your browser. They’re contained. No need to 
block that.


 - They sometimes include completely useless, interface-delaying animations.


Your point being? Sometimes technologies are used for completely useless 
crap. True. Does that make every technology bad?

I understand that all the modal windows used for displaying 
advertisement are annoying as hell, yes. But that doesn’t make modal 
windows as described in this article in any way bad. Have you actually 
read anything there? Have you looked at some of the examples?
May 29 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Alexander Pnek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
news:gvob5q$pgo$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Alexander P?nek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
 news:gvm3qh$1ld9$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander P?nek wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 Alexander P?nek wrote:

 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh god... why...


 *snip*

 "The modal window has many advantages. For example, when a modal 
 window contains a smaller element, the user doesn't need to load an 
 entirely new page just to access it (another way to achieve the same 
 effect is e.g. by using AJAX-based tabs). By providing modal windows, 
 you improve the usability of your website. Having to load pages over 
 and over will annoy most users, so avoiding that is definitely a good 
 thing. Modal windows also allow you to save space by getting rid of 
 large elements that don't need to be on the main page. For example, 
 rather than putting a full video on a page, you can just provide a 
 link, thumbnail or button of some sort."


 Yeah, I read that. I want to smash him to pieces.


 Why? I don't get it. Why is there so much hate and anger about it in the 
 air? Srsly, this whole topic is just completely overrated. It's just the 
 internet. ffs man.


 Because they're like pop-up windows, except they actually manage to be 
 worse. Unlike traditional pop-ups, which are already bad enough:
 - They're modal


 Modal windows are modal, yes. That is certainly true.


You're completely missing my point. Modality is a bad thing and should only 
be used when absolutely necessary. Look at the uses on that page. None of 
them are anything that have any reason for rendering the underlying page 
inaccessible and partially obscured. If it had been done in a real pop-up 
(which obviously would still be bad), it would at least have the benefit of 
not blocking the underlying page.


 - They aren't blocked by pop-up blocking software


 Because they are not pop-ups. They don't open a seperate native window on 
 your desktop or tab in your browser. They're contained. No need to block 
 that.


That's a flawed argument. Flash ads, animating gifs, embedded sounds, and 
blink/marquee tags are all contained in a page. You're not saying that none 
of those should be blockable just because they're contained, are you? 
Obnoxious bullshit needs to be blockable, period. These things are 
incredibly obnoxious. And besides that, yes, of course they are pop-ups. 
They are in-page pop-ups.


 - They sometimes include completely useless, interface-delaying 
 animations.


 Your point being? Sometimes technologies are used for completely useless 
 crap. True. Does that make every technology bad?


As I *just* said in that very same post, my point is that that's one of the 
things that makes them worse than regular popups. Regular popups never do 
that. But these in-page popups do it frequently, and not only that, it's 
even encouraged! Yes, that's most certainly a bad thing. In fact, any 
technology that naturally leads itself to bad design *is* a bad technology 
regardless of whether or not it *can* be kludged into doing something 
properly. See C++.

Oh, also, it breaks the back button. Which is always stupid.


 I understand that all the modal windows used for displaying advertisement 
 are annoying as hell, yes. But that doesn't make modal windows as 
 described in this article in any way bad. Have you actually read anything 
 there? Have you looked at some of the examples?


Yes, of course I've looked at those examples. And they make my skin crawl. 
Every single one of them is something useless that could have been done far 
better without suddenly pretending that modality was somehow a good thing. 
And I have come across them on real websites. And every time I have, I get 
pissed off, turn off JS (see, another example of a bad DHTML ruining it for 
all DHTML) and reload to accomplish whatever it is I was trying to do, and 
then never return to the site.
May 29 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Alexander Pnek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
news:gvlrua$16pq$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?




 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


Oh my god, whoever wrote that should be arrested by internet police and 
locked away for a veeeery long time...
May 28 2009
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Alexander P�nek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
 news:gvlrua$16pq$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?




 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 
 Oh my god, whoever wrote that should be arrested by internet police and 
 locked away for a veeeery long time... 


No.

You know, there are people having a different vision of “The Web” as you 
have, and just because of that you want them to be locked away? 
Seriously, why do some people have to be so stubborn? We have 2009. Not 
1999, but 2009. It’s time for some advancement. The web isn’t only text 
& some floating images inbetween anymore.

There are quite a few crafts involved when building a website, including 
interface designers and programmers. As much as you’d give a rats ass 
about what the designer talks about programming you shouldn’t judge 
about the interface designer’s work. Since it’s his craft and not yours. 
And, please don’t take this personally, but programmers are usually 
really really bad [interface] designers. “Cobbler, stick to your last.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a programmer, too. I’m not really that good at 
interface design either, but I at least try to accept new ways of doing 
things. That’s what I usually expect from other fellow programmers, but 
people never cease to amaze me (in the negative sense).

Oh and btw: if you don’t use vim, you should be arrested by flamewar 
police and locked away for a veeeery long time...
(See what I did there?)

I am sincerely pissed. Not at you personally, but rather the cloud of 
ignorance gladly sharing its existense with me all the time.
May 29 2009
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Alexander,


 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 "Alexander P?nek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message
 news:gvlrua$16pq$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 grauzone wrote:
 

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
 




 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
 
 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-w
 eb-design/
 
 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P
 


 Oh my god, whoever wrote that should be arrested by internet police
 and locked away for a veeeery long time...
 


 No.
 
 You know, there are people having a different vision of "The Web" as
 you have, and just because of that you want them to be locked away?


Might his reaction been to "/modal/ windows"? They are a design idea that 
many people think are bad in /any/ context. It might have nothing in particular 
to do with the web.
May 29 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Alexander Pnek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
news:gvoa8d$o50$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Alexander P?nek" <alexander.panek brainsware.org> wrote in message 
 news:gvlrua$16pq$1 digitalmars.com...

 grauzone wrote:

 browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?




 Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:

 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-design/

 No, I really don't want to torture you. Well, maybe a little. :P


 Oh my god, whoever wrote that should be arrested by internet police and 
 locked away for a veeeery long time...


 No.

 You know, there are people having a different vision of "The Web" as you 
 have, and just because of that you want them to be locked away?


Don't take things so literally.


 Seriously, why do some people have to be so stubborn? We have 2009. Not 
 1999, but 2009. It's time for some advancement. The web isn't only text & 
 some floating images inbetween anymore.


How is it you continue to miss this point: I am asserting that these things 
are *NOT* advancements. These are newer, yes. But "new" does *not* imply 
"better". So...ways in which modern web technology takes us *backwards* (in 
no order):

- Severely reduced responsiveness on the same hardware. (And no, I'm 
obviously not saying no new technology should ever be used that's even a 
little bit slower. I'm just saying that in these cases it's downright 
excessive.)

- Increased usage, and even encouragement, of unnecessary modality. As I 
said in another post, modality is something that should only be used when 
absolutely necessary, and minimized otherwise. Embracing it is an enormous 
interface design flaw and is one of the more common mistakes indicative of 
an amateur interface designer.

- Enormous decrease in usage of proven (and formerly-common) methods of 
static code analysis.

- Lingering after-effects of people who embraced the "(Anti-)Robustness 
Principle".

 - Decreased accessibility (ie, Flash and AJAX. And yes, these *can* be made 
accessible, but nobody bothers, and out-of-the-box the non-Flash/non-AJAX 
stuff is automatically far more accessible).

- Severely decreased ability for the programmer to utilize the same code on 
different servers (Because every server is set up to use a completely 
different subset of CGI/ASP/JVM/PHP/Perl/Ruby/etc, and unlike on the 
desktop, the programmers typically have little-to-no control over which 
one(s) the server is set up to use, and the people who do have control, IT, 
typically don't know anything about programming.) Java promoted itself as 
being "write-once-run-anywhere", but even plain old natively-compiled 
desktop apps are far more "write-once-run-anywhere" than web-server apps.

- Applications are just plain turning to shit. When people (like me) say 
that "the web should not be considered or used as an application platform", 
what they're saying (and you seem to be completely missing) is *not* that it 
"it should never happen", but rather that 
(X)HTML/CSS/JS/AJAX/PHP/HTTP/Flash/etc, as they currently are, are terrible 
foundations on which to build an application, and the results are 
accordingly inferior:  Compare any desktop application to an equivalent 
web-based version (and note I said "equivalent", so no fair comparing a 
notably bad desktop email client to Gmail). All else being equal, the web 
version is naturally going to be far worse. Sure, web apps have the benefit 
of no-install, auto-update (although that's an extremely questionable 
benefit), shared-state, etc. But none of those things are anything that 
can't be done just as well with a desktop app. And we need to be building 
the infrastructures for *that* instead of wasting our time on "clever" 
tricks that shoehorn technologies that are inherently terrible for apps into 
being...fancier.

These are *regressions*, not advancements.


 There are quite a few crafts involved when building a website, including 
 interface designers and programmers. As much as you'd give a rats ass 
 about what the designer talks about programming you shouldn't judge about 
 the interface designer's work. Since it's his craft and not yours. And, 
 please don't take this personally, but programmers are usually really 
 really bad [interface] designers. "Cobbler, stick to your last."


I am a software developer, first and foremost. Interface design (though not 
to be confused with graphic design) is every bit as much a part of that as 
programming (as well as a few other things). If you consider yourself first 
and foremost a programmer, then by all means, go ahead and "stick to your 
last".


 Don't get me wrong, I'm a programmer, too. I'm not really that good at 
 interface design either, but I at least try to accept new ways of doing 
 things. That's what I usually expect from other fellow programmers, but 
 people never cease to amaze me (in the negative sense).


Once again, while I happily embrace the new when it's good (D, ranges), 
unlike most people I'm not so blinded by the "new and shiny" to not see when 
there are clear drawbacks.


 Oh and btw: if you don't use vim, you should be arrested by flamewar 
 police and locked away for a veeeery long time...
 (See what I did there?)


Yes, I see the apples-to-oranges comparison you did there. A developer 
choosing to use vim affects no one but themself. A developer choosing 
AJAX/Modality/etc affects everyone who visits their site.


 I am sincerely pissed. Not at you personally, but rather the cloud of 
 ignorance gladly sharing its existense with me all the time.


Heh, this is the one opinion we very much share, though for obviously very 
different reasons ;)
May 29 2009
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Nick,

[sniped rant about why the web sucks]

I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.

It's ironic that this should come up in the D community because it sounds 
a lot like C++ template are to the web like D template are to what the web 
should be. That is; the Web has taken what it has and abused it (because 
nothing better was available) to get something it wants with no pity for 
the sucker who has to use it.
May 29 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <ao pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:78ccfa2d417fc8cbae8318d2e5b0 news.digitalmars.com...

 Reply to Nick,

 [sniped rant about why the web sucks]

 I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.


"Cool" and "Fair enough" ;)


 It's ironic that this should come up in the D community because it sounds 
 a lot like C++ template are to the web like D template are to what the web 
 should be. That is; the Web has taken what it has and abused it (because 
 nothing better was available) to get something it wants with no pity for 
 the sucker who has to use it.


That's a very good assesement. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but 
that's a very good observation.
May 29 2009
prev sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 adds support for the video element.  Create an easy to use GUI that
 transcodes from any format into Theora and then helps you upload it.


Theora sucks. Technologically, it's at least 10 years to late. Its only 
advantage is to be "free as in freedom". That's because it tries not to 
make use of any patented algorithms. But who cares about software 
patents? GPL h.264 encoders and decoders exist anyway: there's x264 and 
ffmpeg.
May 23 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Ary,


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
 


The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!
May 21 2009
next sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
BCS, el 22 de mayo a las 00:01 me escribiste:

 Reply to Ary,
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 
 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


That's what happens when you have a turing complete language inside
another!

There is no way I can sensibly translate this to english, so I'll just say
it in argentinian: La limaste maaaaal, flaco! =)

As nice as scary =)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATAN AL PERRO: DICEN QUE ESTABA POSEIDO POR EL DEMONIO...
	-- Crónica TV
May 21 2009
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Leandro Lucarella escribió:

 BCS, el 22 de mayo a las 00:01 me escribiste:

 Reply to Ary,


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


 
 That's what happens when you have a turing complete language inside
 another!
 
 There is no way I can sensibly translate this to english, so I'll just say
 it in argentinian: La limaste maaaaal, flaco! =)


Eso es lo que pasa cuando uno tiene un día *aburridísimo* de trabajo (y 
nadie lo controla, obvio). :-P

Ufff... "no sabé lo que me tuve que fumá pa qu'eso salga, chabón"
May 21 2009
parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig, el 21 de mayo a las 22:22 me escribiste:

 Leandro Lucarella escribió:

BCS, el 22 de mayo a las 00:01 me escribiste:

Reply to Ary,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


That's what happens when you have a turing complete language inside
another!
There is no way I can sensibly translate this to english, so I'll just say
it in argentinian: La limaste maaaaal, flaco! =)


 
 Eso es lo que pasa cuando uno tiene un día *aburridísimo* de trabajo (y
nadie lo controla, obvio). :-P
 
 Ufff... "no sabé lo que me tuve que fumá pa qu'eso salga, chabón"


:)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you nervy, irritable, depressed, tired of life.
Keep it up.
	-- Monty Python
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Reply to Ary,
 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 
 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's 
hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.

Even if I spent hours configuring Eclipse for my needs, there's still 
the speed issue. Even after I purchased a new PC, using Eclipse felt 
like stirring lava. (Sure, it was better than before, but I'll just stay 
with my light-speed fast syntax highlighting text editor.)

But for someone who does use Eclipse/Descent, this is great, of course.
May 22 2009
next sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's 
 hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.


I meant to write "big", not "bug". Talk about Freudian Slips!
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 Reply to Ary,


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


 
 It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
 hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.


Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.

In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.

If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
that instead.  But I can't.

Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.
May 22 2009
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 grauzone wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 Reply to Ary,


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


 It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
 hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.


 
 Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
 when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.
 
 In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
 vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
 for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.
 
 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.
 
 Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
 can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.


Another problem with Descent is that it's kind of buggy (yes, I know 
it). But most of the bugs are because of errors in the semantic analysis 
ported from DMD's front end. So, for example, some template 
instantiations fail when they shouldn't.

What's good about being able to debug these template instantiations is 
that we'll be able to understand why a template instantiation fails when 
it shouldn't, that is, there's a bug in Descent, and it'll help us make 
it more robust (it'll help me find faster where's the bug).

Thus, this feature will help you debug templates and compile-time 
functions, and also make Descent better. :-)
May 22 2009
parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
Ary Borenszweig schrieb:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 grauzone wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 Reply to Ary,


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!


 It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
 hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.


 
 Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
 when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.
 
 In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
 vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
 for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.
 
 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.
 
 Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
 can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.


 
 Another problem with Descent is that it's kind of buggy (yes, I know 
 it). But most of the bugs are because of errors in the semantic analysis 
 ported from DMD's front end. So, for example, some template 
 instantiations fail when they shouldn't.


maybe we should think about extending dmd itselfe to give you
and runtime interface to the compile which can be used for
features like that - any ideas?
May 22 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Daniel,


 In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
 vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with
 that for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time
 debugging.
 
 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.
 
 Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook
 and can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.


I've used Eclipse in a netbook. It works fine aside from the screen being 
a little small. But then again, the screen being a little small would be 
a problem no mater what editor I used until I can afford this:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000959.html
May 22 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
 when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.


That's not what I'm saying. First, he's free to do with his time 
whatever he chooses to. Second, I think it'd be better to decouple 
debugger and editor. For example, I'd like to use this feature without 
having to use an entire IDE. Wouldn't it be great to have a free choice 
what components to use?

Of course, that's only theory. In practice, it's simpler to built on an 
existing framework, GUI, and so on. And Ary is actually in favor of the 
fat-IDE-approach. I mean, that's fine, I don't expect him to change 
anything about this and I respect his opinion.


 In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
 vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
 for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.
 
 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.


As I said, I don't like all-in-one components. Except if it's really a 
holy grail of an IDE (by definition, everything would be perfect). But 
yeah, you can't have that. Thus it'd be better to split functionality 
and features across different pieces of software.


 Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
 can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:
 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.


Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
May 22 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gv6qcj$2ckd$1 digitalmars.com...

 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.


 Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?


I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting question (maybe one of 
our resident Eclipse experts can answer it?): If it were ported to D, would 
that really improve the speed/resource-usage? From various things I've 
heard, I fear the answer may be "only a little bit" and that it would still 
need a bunch of extra optimizations (Although despite claims of Java being 
fast, I would think it still has a big limit in that there's a lot of 
optimizations that just simply can't be done without a systems language like 
D).
May 22 2009
parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Saaa" <empty needmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gv6qcj$2ckd$1 digitalmars.com...

 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.


 Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?


 
 I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting question (maybe one of 
 our resident Eclipse experts can answer it?): If it were ported to D, would 
 that really improve the speed/resource-usage? From various things I've 
 heard, I fear the answer may be "only a little bit" and that it would still 
 need a bunch of extra optimizations (Although despite claims of Java being 
 fast, I would think it still has a big limit in that there's a lot of 
 optimizations that just simply can't be done without a systems language like 
 D).


A direct port of Eclipse to D I would guess to be much SLOWER. Eclipse 
relies *heavily* on inheritance (Java can inline virtual calls; D can't) 
and allocating many small objects (something D tests badly in, and Java 
is particularly well-suited for).

There's also a lot of static initialization that would need to be 
converted to static this() in D. However, in Java, the static stuff is 
initialized lazily at the first time it's used, while in D, it's all run 
at startup, even if only 1/5th of it is going to be used.

If the codebase were D-ized, it's possible that native code 
optimizations make it slightly faster (though the shootout shows Java 
performing nearly as well as C/C++/D for many tasks).
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:26:32 +0200, Saaa wrote:


 If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
 that instead.  But I can't.


 
 Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?


Frank has an interest in having Eclipse ported, but nothing has been 
started that I know of.
May 22 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


when is the next release, pretty please? :)
May 21 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M



Pretty cool feature :)
May 22 2009
prev sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Ary Borenszweig escribi:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really 
hart to do. Imagine this:

---
char[] something() {
	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
}

mixin("int bla(int x) { x *= 2; " ~ something ~ " return 4; }");

void main() {
	const something = bla(2);
}
---

Now I want to debug the invocation of bla: how the variable x is being 
modified. But there's no such place in the source code for that 
definition (well, there is, but it's split in pieces, and obviously 
you'll get lost when debugging).

So I'm starting to think that the compile-time debugger should work on 
the (formatted) compile-time view of the modules. So you'll end up 
debugging code like this:

---
char[] something() {
	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
}

int bla(int x) {
	x *= 2;
	x *= 3;
	x += 4;
	return x;
}

void main() {
	const something = bla(2);
}
---

But that's way more hard to do than what I'm doing right now.

Finally, you might want to have both worlds together, like:

---
char[] someOtherFunc() {
   return "char[] x = \"whatever\";";
}

char[] someFunc() {
   mixin(someOtherFunc());
   return x;
}


mixin(someFunc());
---

Now I want to debug someFunc(). But I also want to see that 
someOtherFunc() is expanded well, so I can't just show the compile-time 
view of the module, because doing this might have an error already (the 
error I want to debug, for example!). (and also the compile-time view 
dependens on the function I'm trying to debug)

Aaah... I give up.

(I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrappes:units project).
May 29 2009
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:


 Ary Borenszweig escribi:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 
 Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really 
 hart to do. Imagine this:
 
 ---
 char[] something() {
 	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }
 
 mixin("int bla(int x) { x *= 2; " ~ something ~ " return 4; }");
 
 void main() {
 	const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---
 
 Now I want to debug the invocation of bla: how the variable x is being 
 modified. But there's no such place in the source code for that 
 definition (well, there is, but it's split in pieces, and obviously 
 you'll get lost when debugging).
 
 So I'm starting to think that the compile-time debugger should work on 
 the (formatted) compile-time view of the modules. So you'll end up 
 debugging code like this:
 
 ---
 char[] something() {
 	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }
 
 int bla(int x) {
 	x *= 2;
 	x *= 3;
 	x += 4;
 	return x;
 }
 
 void main() {
 	const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---
 
 But that's way more hard to do than what I'm doing right now.
 
 Finally, you might want to have both worlds together, like:
 
 ---
 char[] someOtherFunc() {
    return "char[] x = \"whatever\";";
 }
 
 char[] someFunc() {
    mixin(someOtherFunc());
    return x;
 }
 
 
 mixin(someFunc());
 ---
 
 Now I want to debug someFunc(). But I also want to see that 
 someOtherFunc() is expanded well, so I can't just show the compile-time 
 view of the module, because doing this might have an error already (the 
 error I want to debug, for example!). (and also the compile-time view 
 dependens on the function I'm trying to debug)
 
 Aaah... I give up.
 
 (I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrappes:units project).


NO! Don't give up! I've already started using it, and it's very useful even if
it can't debug compile-time-generated code; that's only a very small use case.
May 30 2009
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Robert Fraser escribi:

 Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
 

 Ary Borenszweig escribi:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really 
 hart to do. Imagine this:

 ---
 char[] something() {
 	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }

 mixin("int bla(int x) { x *= 2; " ~ something ~ " return 4; }");

 void main() {
 	const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---

 Now I want to debug the invocation of bla: how the variable x is being 
 modified. But there's no such place in the source code for that 
 definition (well, there is, but it's split in pieces, and obviously 
 you'll get lost when debugging).

 So I'm starting to think that the compile-time debugger should work on 
 the (formatted) compile-time view of the modules. So you'll end up 
 debugging code like this:

 ---
 char[] something() {
 	return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }

 int bla(int x) {
 	x *= 2;
 	x *= 3;
 	x += 4;
 	return x;
 }

 void main() {
 	const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---

 But that's way more hard to do than what I'm doing right now.

 Finally, you might want to have both worlds together, like:

 ---
 char[] someOtherFunc() {
    return "char[] x = \"whatever\";";
 }

 char[] someFunc() {
    mixin(someOtherFunc());
    return x;
 }


 mixin(someFunc());
 ---

 Now I want to debug someFunc(). But I also want to see that 
 someOtherFunc() is expanded well, so I can't just show the compile-time 
 view of the module, because doing this might have an error already (the 
 error I want to debug, for example!). (and also the compile-time view 
 dependens on the function I'm trying to debug)

 Aaah... I give up.

 (I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrappes:units project).


 
 NO! Don't give up! I've already started using it, and it's very useful even if
it can't debug compile-time-generated code; that's only a very small use case.


Cool! :-)

Well, I think I'll give up with string mixins for the moment.

What did you debug? What did you find useful? What would you improve?
May 30 2009
parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 Robert Fraser escribi:

 Ary Borenszweig Wrote:


 Ary Borenszweig escribi:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M


 Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really 
 hart to do. Imagine this:

 ---
 char[] something() {
     return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }

 mixin("int bla(int x) { x *= 2; " ~ something ~ " return 4; }");

 void main() {
     const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---

 Now I want to debug the invocation of bla: how the variable x is 
 being modified. But there's no such place in the source code for that 
 definition (well, there is, but it's split in pieces, and obviously 
 you'll get lost when debugging).

 So I'm starting to think that the compile-time debugger should work 
 on the (formatted) compile-time view of the modules. So you'll end up 
 debugging code like this:

 ---
 char[] something() {
     return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
 }

 int bla(int x) {
     x *= 2;
     x *= 3;
     x += 4;
     return x;
 }

 void main() {
     const something = bla(2);
 }
 ---

 But that's way more hard to do than what I'm doing right now.

 Finally, you might want to have both worlds together, like:

 ---
 char[] someOtherFunc() {
    return "char[] x = \"whatever\";";
 }

 char[] someFunc() {
    mixin(someOtherFunc());
    return x;
 }


 mixin(someFunc());
 ---

 Now I want to debug someFunc(). But I also want to see that 
 someOtherFunc() is expanded well, so I can't just show the 
 compile-time view of the module, because doing this might have an 
 error already (the error I want to debug, for example!). (and also 
 the compile-time view dependens on the function I'm trying to debug)

 Aaah... I give up.

 (I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrappes:units 
 project).


 NO! Don't give up! I've already started using it, and it's very useful 
 even if it can't debug compile-time-generated code; that's only a very 
 small use case.


 
 Cool! :-)
 
 Well, I think I'll give up with string mixins for the moment.
 
 What did you debug? What did you find useful? What would you improve?


I debugged my CTFE code that generates string mixins (essentially a 
compile-time parser for a limited domain-specific language). Worked like 
a charm once I increased Eclipse's memory limits.
Jun 01 2009
prev sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Ary,


 (I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrapple:units
 project).
 


I'm sorry <g> OTOH that is a rater pathological cases.

One option that might be doable (I don't know how the inside works so I'm 
guessing here) is to have the debug more highlight expression that can undergo 
CTFE and constant folding. The user would work by selecting an expression 
and it would be replace with it's value. to make things manageable, long 
string expressions could be truncated and accessed via pop up and as for 
string mixins, run the result thought the general code formatter.
Jun 01 2009