Representative lines from a view file
-
I think it's the fact that a mention implies a reply.. but I'm not Jeff either...
-
Reply only:
<img src="/uploads/default/5258/35c692f81d7ad53a.png" width="330" height="299">It may have to do with:
- whether it's the first notification today in that thread (multiple replies since I viewed it stack, a mention in one post might prevent a reply in another from showing?)
- Whether I am tracking the topic? (I am here)
- Does being the OP do something different than just tracking?
-
Arantor said:
Whoever that XHTML5 was a good idea requires being forced to kneel on rice whilst holding a penny to the wall with their nose, to contemplate what they've done.That... is a really weird punishment
I know kneeling on frozen peas is a (common?) punishment in Japan, and is agonising. I would assume rice is the same only slightly less awful. wall/penny/nose I dont understand.
-
Penny is very important so the person doesn't zone out. Doing something stupid like that requires constant attention and focuses them on the punishment. XD
-
Penny is very important so the person doesn't zone out. Doing something stupid like that requires constant attention and focuses them on the punishment. XD
Thank you for explaining, I'm sure I'd have messed it up if I'd tried to explain it XD
-
I'd think a reply is more important than a mention and suppress the other way around, but oh well, I'm not Jeff.
I think a mention is more important than a reply. A reply could be about something in general, but a mention is explicitly calling you out about something. JGI
-
Penny is very important so the person doesn't zone out. Doing something stupid like that requires constant attention and focuses them on the punishment. XD
The emoticon/emoji (is that what you kids are calling them now?) makes all of that sound very... Bondage.
-
Afraid I am not up to speed on the lingo. I'm chronically 'uncool'. But thank you. I shall take this as a compliment.
-
regardless of anything you say, I now will for eternity imagine you putting gimp masks on beer bellied hairy men and making them kneel on frozen peas and hold a penny to a wall while you strut around in a full latex outfit that makes various parts of your anatomy bulge.
It should be noted that I am making no assumptions about your gender at this point, and all imagery is gender agnostic. Except the beer bellied hairy men, that is a static feature.
-
I think it's the fact that a mention implies a reply.. but I'm not Jeff either...
Nah, I could be talking about you in a reply to someone else.But since my previous post I've reconsidered. Explicitly calling one one is pretty serious. And replies lose their value when the icon is the same regardless of whether it is a direct reply or a reply to a thread I'm watching.
-
Whaaaaaaaaaaa! Heteronormative/ media-propagated stereotypes about kinky people and submissive men! Run, run like the wind I must!
-
Heteronormative/ media-propagated stereotypes
Exactly. Who said there are no beer-bellied hairy women?
-
I like jQuery.
I'm not a bad web developer - in fact I am decent. I name my shit well, I value semantics so that my juniors can work out WTF I was doing without me needing to explain.
I do recognise that jQuery is not the be-all and end-all of javascript; there's plenty of times that jQuery is not the best tool.
But equally - many, many times, jQuery is the best known framework, the problem has been solved using jQuery, and the solution - though not always optimal - works. If my juniors go down that path, and the shit they do works; works without serious issues and gets done fast - I'm happy.
Hating on jQuery for reasons like "semantics (and good naming) are for people who don't use jQuery, a.k.a. bad web developers" is both close-minded and arrogant.
-
Wouldn't you much rather live in a world where jQuery was not necessary because DOM wasn't specced-out by dumbshits?
-
Wouldn't you much rather live in a world where jQuery was not necessary because DOM wasn't specced-out by dumbshits?
Yes, but if we're wishing for fantasies I'll include a few others less prosaic instead.
-
Wouldn't you much rather live in a world where jQuery was not necessary because DOM wasn't specced-out by dumbshits?
The problem isn't so much a lack of specification on the part of the DOM but because of stupid stagnant browsers.
I'd love jQuery to not be necessary.
-
Right. Just pointing out the ludicrousness that, to write quality web applications, web developers basically have to ignore the standards committee in charge of speccing-out the web application API.
Also the secondary craziness that web developers like scudsucker seem to think the current situation is perfectly normal.
The problem isn't a lack of specification on the part of the DOM but because of stupid stagnant browsers.
How do you figure? AFAIK, all browsers have had a bug-free DOM implementation for almost 5 years now.
-
Remember when web devs could finally stop worrying about IE6 compatibility?
NEITHER DO I BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!
-
My opinion is that browsers should just start implementing jQuery natively already.
-
Yes please. But we don't have that option.
-
Remember when web devs could finally stop worrying about IE6 compatibility?
NEITHER DO I BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED!
Oh poor baby. Here let me get your binky.
Have I mentioned on Discourse yet how web developers are all whiny little baby infants who bitch and moan when someone tells them they actually have to test their code in the environment their user uses? I don't know of any other group of programmers who whine about doing their job as much as web developers.
-
Remember when web devs could finally stop worrying about IE6 compatibility?
Some can ignore it now. What's more, there's some evidence that IE6 is functionally dead for at least anything on the public web; the fact that you've not been able to buy a computer with it on for many years is really telling…
… though whether you want to believe those figures fit the profile for your site is up to you. (I've not seen anyone using IE6 for anything for a long time; the types who didn't want any change seem to have decided they wanted to use an iPad for that sort of thing.)
-
Also the secondary craziness that web developers like scudsucker seem to think the current situation is perfectly normal.
Unfortunately, it is normal. Batshit insane, but definitely normal.
Also, a big fuck you to HTML5 for not fixing HTML
-
Discourse doesn't work on IE5. (I tried it from a Win98SE VM I recently set up.) Who do I complain to?
-
I'd say IE6 is stone-dead in almost all of the western world. If you want your product to work in Asia, China and especially Korea, you still can't ignore it.
Korea went full-retard on ActiveX back in the day.
-
Hah, I win, I'm not a web developer.
-
all whiny little baby infants who bitch and moan when someone tells them they actually have to test their code in the environment their user uses?
Don't get me started. I've been told by more than a few senior* web developers, that unit testing & regression testing is not necessary because a) too much work, and b) the bugs will be reported, and its easy to fix when you have access to the server.
I'm self taught; I come from a background in the extremely sloppy ASP VBscript world, but even so I strongly value testing of all types (unit, regression, usability etc etc etc)
* senior here = age / experience, not necessarily skill
-
If you want your product to work in Asia, China and especially Korea, you still can't ignore it.
Fortunately, I can't read moon runes in the first place, so they can't do much to tell me about how broken my sites are for them.
-
Oh poor baby. Here let me get your binky.
Have I mentioned on Discourse yet how web developers are all whiny little baby infants who bitch and moan when someone tells them they actually have to test their code in the environment their user uses? I don't know of any other group of programmers who whine about doing their job as much as web developers.
Hey, I resent that. I'm a web developer who not only tests my own stuff, shouts at people for not testing their stuff etc.
We're not all that bad. Only most of the ecosystem.
-
Ja, I work in the third world. South Africa still has millions of unpatched Windows installations with IE6.
Fun times, every time.
-
I'm not a web developer, but I've done several .NET web development tasks (usually when applying for jobs) either in MVC or WebForms
Am I right in thinking that WebForms is making the entirety of your life harder for you, and actively working against your attempts to unit test your code? Maybe I'm just a moron, but it feels like everything in webforms is set up to be impossible to unit test, or at least huge swathes of your code acting in displaying/rendering pages. While MVC framework projects remove all of this and make unit testing trivially easy.
Am I a moron?
-
WebForms is making the entirety of your life harder for you
Webforms is the way that Microsoft tried to kill the internet by causing all web developers to commit suicide.
They forgot, in their hubris, that other languages exist for the web, and that no-one but deranged Microsoft applications developers would understand WTF Webforms are all about.
Thank god for MVC, the MS version is actually quite good.
-
Oh - and let us never get into discussion about "__viewstate"
FFS Microsoft. FFS.
-
WebForms is fine for what it was designed to do.
-
My opinion is that browsers should just start implementing jQuery natively already.
That will work well with versioning.
-
WebForms is fine for what it was designed to do.
It's what it was designed to do that's the problem.
-
I'd take being close-minded and arrogant (thank you btw!) with jQuery over anything else.
And I do use it. And I use it right. And I know how bad the native DOM API is in Javascript.Doesn't mean I find the current situation normal and a big +1 for blakeyrat. HTML5 didn't fix anything. WTF are you doing, W3C?!
-
-
Bender, that you?
-
-
HTML5 didn't fix anything.
HTML is not the DOM. The DOM is the problem. The CSS is the problem. The W3C committees working on those two specifications ("working") are somehow even worse than the ones working on HTML.
-
As far as I get WebForms, its design was basically moving all the WinForms concepts to a vastly different medium that Web is.
A cool concept, but pretty impossible to execute. Try it, and you get... well, ViewState, and WebForms controls (which are almost, but not quite, entirely unlike respective HTML controls), and a general total mess under "View Source".
Sure, it's really easy to write code there (especially if you're not a Web developer), but then something screws up, and you need to figure out how WebForms actually work under the sheets, and the horrors, the horrors.
-
The DOM is the problem.
The DOM interface is terrible. The basic model (tree of elements with named attributes and text nodes for leaves) isn't so bad.
