Algebra Rizing
in [Lisp]
|
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 2 Jul 2010 10:53 Asen Bozhilov wrote: > His kennyness wrote: >> You do not even know what my math editor does and are smart enough to >> talk about it anyway? Will you be my friend? i could learn so >> much....PWUAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAA!!!!!! > > [...] > Go away and stop wasting our time with your brain problems! +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +-------------------+ / \ | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \ | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | (______Y______) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ================================================================== F'up2 0d
From: Stefan Weiss on 2 Jul 2010 11:17 On 02/07/10 16:13, Gildas wrote: >> Gildas wrote: >> > It's quite annoying to see dozen of "blank" requests when I >> > try to write a number... >> >> "dozen[s] of"?! (guessing at the idomatic expression you meant, but even >> one dozen is a problem because...): There is one xhr per digit. I doubt >> you were writing a number 24 digits long. (snip) > Use case : > Try to type a digit without numeric keyboard and without CAPS LOCK on. > Then, you'll need to press the shift key. Let's say you press shift > key one second, you have sent 20 XHR if keyrepeat is set to 20 on your > OS. The shift key will only be necessary on keyboard layouts like the French one. English or American layouts normally have the numbers available in the upper row without modifiers, and require shift for symbols like "!" or "(". The shift key shouldn't cause any repeating events. You should only get events for one "keydown" and one "keyup". I don't see any XHR requests sent for the shift key in the algebra editor at all. That doesn't mean the editor is usable in its current state. It's trivially easy to leave it in an unresponsive state by accident. This happened to me twice in a row - in the "typing tutorial", no less. My motivation to file a detailed bug report is rather low, because the product in question is a commercial application by an author who prefers to ridicule bug reporters, built on a commercial framework which has been shown to be unreliable. Let them figure it out for themselves. "His kennyness" said he doesn't want help with his application, and he quite obviously doesn't want to discuss its JavaScript related aspects. Yet he continues to post in comp.lang.javascript, pitching his algebra product and insulting the other posters. That's not "bullying the bullies", that's trolling and spamming. PS: I just saw Kenneth Tilton's reply about the unnecessary XHR requests. Performance is "mission-critical" for him, and the solution to the problem is to close your eyes (don't look at the requests)? Priceless. -- stefan
From: Gildas on 2 Jul 2010 11:19 On 2 juil, 16:35, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I reach up to the fourth row of my keyboard and type the digit without > using any modifier keys. > > Are you using a cell phone to do Algebra? That is so cool! No I just use a french keyboard on my laptop. > > Then, you'll need to press the shift key. Let's say you press shift > > key one second, you have sent 20 XHR if keyrepeat is set to 20 on your > > OS. > > Oh, that. If you turn off your XHR viewer do you notice a problem? Does > your ISP charge you per XHR? Why are you watching XHRs? Are you just > looking for a reason to get annoyed? My ISP does not charge me per XHR. I'm watching XHRs because I'm a developer too. Actually, if you didn't include firebug lite in your site, I'm not sure I would have opened my developer debug tool. > I can prolly avoid that by watching for key-up and key-down events and > then keeping track internally (which is how my app works when talking to > tcl/tk). Hmm, maybe I can Just Filter Them on the client--I think the > modifiers state comes along with the actual key event. Maybe. > Note that this is not an exercise in making comp.lang.javascript happy, > this is an exercise in improving math proficiency by moving a > little-known desktop application for Windows to the Web. It seems quite > fast to me, and the only people who say it is slow also turn out to be > library haters whose reports cannot be reproduced. Plonk. My name is Gildas, not comp.lang.javascript and it's the first time I post here. So, I don't think I'm known as a "library hater". > If it makes you feel better, performance is indeed a mission-critical > concern in my mind and I have my eye out for problems. An initial big > concern was indeed the per-key round-trip. So far I have seen zero > problems. Your pain is self-inflicted: you are watching XHRs for no reason. I just wanted to help you in order to improve your application. BTW, the alt key does not seem to work (maybe a french laptop keyboard issue) so I'm unable to type the last formula in the tutorial.
From: Kenneth Tilton on 2 Jul 2010 11:24 Alessio Stalla wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:13 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Which popular web applications use qooxdoo? Or smartclient? > > I'm waiting for an answer... > >>> Imho, JS libraries for "RIAs" are complete bullshit. >> Is that why they work so well? Cue the Markovian Hounds... > > Evidently I don't believe they work that well... > >>> They basically >>> rewrite everything down to the layout manager, not leveraging the >>> browser at all... and in a language, JavaScript, which is interpreted >>> and single-threaded! >> And JIT compiled these days!! Try solving -3x-2>13 for x over here: >> >> http://teamalgebra.com >> >> Now tell me, was the application in fact too slow for you to do Algebra >> assuming you were learning it? Or are you just arguing from general >> principles? The latter is dangerous because it means burning hours to >> speed things up which might not need it -- programmers guess badly at >> what will be slow, and usually the problem is in the higher-order >> design, not the implementation stack. > > I'm not talking specifically about Algebra, and I'm not talking only > about speed either, but about general user experience. > >> If it was too slow for you, go here and do a speed test to Washington, >> DC: I get 12.43/2.10 down/up. >> >>> If you only use the browser as a canvas to paint >>> on, you'd get much better results with a Java applet. Or Flash - I'm >>> biased towards Java because that's what I know, >> My heart goes out to you. > > I'm not saying Java is perfect, far from it, just - in my humble > opinion - better than Flash and Silverlight. We all know that if the > browser was written in Lisp we would have far less problems :) > >>> but a few competing >>> technologies are out there for you to choose. >>> JS is good for lightweight scripting, not for implementing GUI >>> libraries. >> Ah, you /are/ working from general rules. Tsk tsk! >> >> Your problem is that I have used qooxdoo enough to see how well it works >> cross-platform and how fast I am porting a desktop application to the >> web. ie, You are trying with your kind recommendation to solve a problem >> that does not exist. > > The problem is precisely "porting a desktop application to the web". > That cannot be done, period. Not without either changing the > application to embrace the "web way", or using the browser as a mere > deployment tool, not a platform. Heavy use of AJAX + redoing a whole > GUI library in JS just doesn't cut it, at least today. Maybe in a few > years browsers will evolve, new protocols will be developed, and it > will indeed be possible to have desktop-like applications on the web, > but not today. Well, that's the concern, isn't it? But the reason I gave it a try was that I saw how responsive certain web apps had gotten. So I gave it a try and it is working, and I guess you know it because you have not admitted that this site is highly perofrmant: http://teamalgebra.com/ And when you say "I am not talking about Algebra" then you need a good plonking because the whole point with performance is that we are not doing abstract applications, we are doing /this/ application and I explained that so you are just being dense. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: Alessio Stalla on 2 Jul 2010 11:45
On Jul 2, 5:24 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alessio Stalla wrote: > > On Jul 2, 3:13 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Which popular web applications use qooxdoo? Or smartclient? > > > I'm waiting for an answer... > > >>> Imho, JS libraries for "RIAs" are complete bullshit. > >> Is that why they work so well? Cue the Markovian Hounds... > > > Evidently I don't believe they work that well... > > >>> They basically > >>> rewrite everything down to the layout manager, not leveraging the > >>> browser at all... and in a language, JavaScript, which is interpreted > >>> and single-threaded! > >> And JIT compiled these days!! Try solving -3x-2>13 for x over here: > > >> http://teamalgebra.com > > >> Now tell me, was the application in fact too slow for you to do Algebra > >> assuming you were learning it? Or are you just arguing from general > >> principles? The latter is dangerous because it means burning hours to > >> speed things up which might not need it -- programmers guess badly at > >> what will be slow, and usually the problem is in the higher-order > >> design, not the implementation stack. > > > I'm not talking specifically about Algebra, and I'm not talking only > > about speed either, but about general user experience. > > >> If it was too slow for you, go here and do a speed test to Washington, > >> DC: I get 12.43/2.10 down/up. > > >>> If you only use the browser as a canvas to paint > >>> on, you'd get much better results with a Java applet. Or Flash - I'm > >>> biased towards Java because that's what I know, > >> My heart goes out to you. > > > I'm not saying Java is perfect, far from it, just - in my humble > > opinion - better than Flash and Silverlight. We all know that if the > > browser was written in Lisp we would have far less problems :) > > >>> but a few competing > >>> technologies are out there for you to choose. > >>> JS is good for lightweight scripting, not for implementing GUI > >>> libraries. > >> Ah, you /are/ working from general rules. Tsk tsk! > > >> Your problem is that I have used qooxdoo enough to see how well it works > >> cross-platform and how fast I am porting a desktop application to the > >> web. ie, You are trying with your kind recommendation to solve a problem > >> that does not exist. > > > The problem is precisely "porting a desktop application to the web". > > That cannot be done, period. Not without either changing the > > application to embrace the "web way", or using the browser as a mere > > deployment tool, not a platform. Heavy use of AJAX + redoing a whole > > GUI library in JS just doesn't cut it, at least today. Maybe in a few > > years browsers will evolve, new protocols will be developed, and it > > will indeed be possible to have desktop-like applications on the web, > > but not today. > > Well, that's the concern, isn't it? But the reason I gave it a try was > that I saw how responsive certain web apps had gotten. So I gave it a > try and it is working, and I guess you know it because you have not > admitted that this site is highly perofrmant: > > http://teamalgebra.com/ > > And when you say "I am not talking about Algebra" then you need a good > plonking because the whole point with performance is that we are not > doing abstract applications, we are doing /this/ application and I > explained that so you are just being dense. Well, if you want to talk specifically about Algebra... I must say that I only tried it from a corporate network that sucks badly, but for me it's very slow - not particularly the load time but the responsiveness. But the worst part is not really that, it's that the GUI is not very usable, cut and paste don't work, and the overall feel is that of really poor interactivity. I speculate that it all comes from qooxdoo, even if you're desperately trying to convince me that it's all your fault... ;) Alessio |