My Library _passes_ TaskSpeed in IE < 7
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: A good opportunity to investment
Next: FAQ Topic - Why does framename.print() not print the correct frame in IE? (2010-02-19)
From: David Mark on 22 Feb 2010 17:43 S.T. wrote: > On 2/22/2010 12:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >>> In the travel industry at least (and I'm certain other industries as >>> well, though not all) you can accurately measure the potential revenue >>> of a visitor based on their search query. >> >> Sounds like marketing voodoo to me. > > Yikes! Ever wonder why PPC keywords in a similar theme will see bids > deviating by a factor of 10 or more? Hint: It's not voodoo. Still, what does this have to do with jQuery (or not using jQuery?) > > >>> Thought we were making progress. >> >> You'll have to enlighten me. I didn't know "we" were doing anything. >> If you mean that _you_ have been more reasonable in _here_ of late, then >> I will give you that. ISTM that you have been helpful of late (and less >> likely to flame me for condemning your library of choice). > > Meaning for a brief while there it seemed you had taken a step back and > were content to discuss your library's merits. I am, but why should I ignore the "competitor" shortcomings. Seems relevant to me (and to others apparently).
From: David Mark on 22 Feb 2010 17:48 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 22, 2:01 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 23/02/2010 6:35 AM, S.T. wrote: >>> Oy! Just noticed you went off on another rant/bashfest in some Ajaxian >>> comments. Thought we were making progress. I don't think you're able to >>> rationally discuss jQuery and similar libraries so I'm not gonna spend >>> any more time trying. >> I think that's because DM has made one objective criticism after another >> about jquery and the response by "fans of jquery" is typically of the >> nature "it works for me" (instead of rationally discussing each >> criticism raised). > > DM is very good at identifying very specific problems in jQuery and > other libs. You are very poor at apologizing for _massive_ problems that you don't fully understand (or perhaps you just like to see your name in print). How can you still be in here two years later pretending that DOM properties and attributes are not primary concerns for DOM scripting libraries. And the stuff I post is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. > He isn't very good at understanding what impact - or what > lack of impact - that has in a particular situation. Now, how stupid is that statement? Obviously I understand _exactly_ what the impact is as I hit a bullseye every time I write a new test. All you have to do is read (and understand) the code. BTW, as you are still stuck with jQuery 1.2x due to compatibility problems, you should really have a look at how that one "performs" in the very latest browsers (supposedly the only ones you care about). Your stuff is rotting under your feet (and it wasn't that fresh to begin with). ;) > Nor does he ever > seem willing to discuss the other factors that matter to developers > who choose to use jQuery, or how it may fit into a larger, "non-ideal" > development environment and solve considerably more problems than it > causes. No, you are just ignorant (or an incessant apologist). You've been spouting the same bullshit for years. When are you going to realize you have become a laughingstock because of it?
From: S.T. on 22 Feb 2010 18:12 On 2/22/2010 2:43 PM, David Mark wrote: > S.T. wrote: >> On 2/22/2010 12:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >>>> In the travel industry at least (and I'm certain other industries as >>>> well, though not all) you can accurately measure the potential revenue >>>> of a visitor based on their search query. >>> >>> Sounds like marketing voodoo to me. >> >> Yikes! Ever wonder why PPC keywords in a similar theme will see bids >> deviating by a factor of 10 or more? Hint: It's not voodoo. > > Still, what does this have to do with jQuery (or not using jQuery?) This subtopic began with my reasoning as to why I don't care if jQuery works for mobile browsers -- specifically, because I don't care about the mobile market and the reason why. >> >> >>>> Thought we were making progress. >>> >>> You'll have to enlighten me. I didn't know "we" were doing anything. >>> If you mean that _you_ have been more reasonable in _here_ of late, then >>> I will give you that. ISTM that you have been helpful of late (and less >>> likely to flame me for condemning your library of choice). >> >> Meaning for a brief while there it seemed you had taken a step back and >> were content to discuss your library's merits. > > I am, but why should I ignore the "competitor" shortcomings. Seems > relevant to me (and to others apparently). Recognizing competitor's shortcomings doesn't exactly translate to jumping into any post that happens to reference one of them, proclaiming them fatally flawed garbage written by clueless fools.
From: David Mark on 22 Feb 2010 18:10 S.T. wrote: > On 2/22/2010 2:43 PM, David Mark wrote: >> S.T. wrote: >>> On 2/22/2010 12:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >>>>> In the travel industry at least (and I'm certain other industries as >>>>> well, though not all) you can accurately measure the potential revenue >>>>> of a visitor based on their search query. >>>> >>>> Sounds like marketing voodoo to me. >>> >>> Yikes! Ever wonder why PPC keywords in a similar theme will see bids >>> deviating by a factor of 10 or more? Hint: It's not voodoo. >> >> Still, what does this have to do with jQuery (or not using jQuery?) > > This subtopic began with my reasoning as to why I don't care if jQuery > works for mobile browsers -- specifically, because I don't care about > the mobile market and the reason why. But you work on public-facing sites and mobile browsers are out there (in droves these days). There's nothing wrong with degrading (gracefully) back to a static document for these visitors. What is definitely wrong is using a script that gets in the way of (rather than enables) progressive enhancement, so that your documents may be rendered unusable due to an exception thrown in the middle of one of your enhancements. Think about that. If you pretend that mobile (or older) browsers do not exist, visitors will respond by pretending that your clients' sites do not exist. ;) > >>> >>> >>>>> Thought we were making progress. >>>> >>>> You'll have to enlighten me. I didn't know "we" were doing anything. >>>> If you mean that _you_ have been more reasonable in _here_ of late, >>>> then >>>> I will give you that. ISTM that you have been helpful of late (and >>>> less >>>> likely to flame me for condemning your library of choice). >>> >>> Meaning for a brief while there it seemed you had taken a step back and >>> were content to discuss your library's merits. >> >> I am, but why should I ignore the "competitor" shortcomings. Seems >> relevant to me (and to others apparently). > > Recognizing competitor's shortcomings doesn't exactly translate to > jumping into any post that happens to reference one of them, proclaiming > them fatally flawed garbage written by clueless fools. If the shoe fits... :)
From: Andrew Poulos on 22 Feb 2010 18:40
On 23/02/2010 10:12 AM, S.T. wrote: > On 2/22/2010 2:43 PM, David Mark wrote: >> S.T. wrote: >>> On 2/22/2010 12:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >>>>> In the travel industry at least (and I'm certain other industries as >>>>> well, though not all) you can accurately measure the potential revenue >>>>> of a visitor based on their search query. >>>> >>>> Sounds like marketing voodoo to me. >>> >>> Yikes! Ever wonder why PPC keywords in a similar theme will see bids >>> deviating by a factor of 10 or more? Hint: It's not voodoo. >> >> Still, what does this have to do with jQuery (or not using jQuery?) > > This subtopic began with my reasoning as to why I don't care if jQuery > works for mobile browsers -- specifically, because I don't care about > the mobile market and the reason why. You know that if I was your manager and I brought my shiny new mobile device to you to help me get our company's web site to display on it properly and you told me that you don't care the site doesn't display properly on mobile devices your next task would be to update your resume. >>>>> Thought we were making progress. >>>> >>>> You'll have to enlighten me. I didn't know "we" were doing anything. >>>> If you mean that _you_ have been more reasonable in _here_ of late, >>>> then >>>> I will give you that. ISTM that you have been helpful of late (and less >>>> likely to flame me for condemning your library of choice). >>> >>> Meaning for a brief while there it seemed you had taken a step back and >>> were content to discuss your library's merits. >> >> I am, but why should I ignore the "competitor" shortcomings. Seems >> relevant to me (and to others apparently). > > Recognizing competitor's shortcomings doesn't exactly translate to > jumping into any post that happens to reference one of them, proclaiming > them fatally flawed garbage written by clueless fools. Still attacking the messenger and not checking whether the message that is carried is valid or not. Andrew Poulos |