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 18:44 Andrew Poulos wrote: > 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. Well said. The industry needs more managers like you. Unfortunately, it is my experience that the typical middle manager is an enabler of incompetence. They don't know anything, so they assume that shiny jQuery muck is genius, reinforcing the delusions of the programmers and making it harder to tell them they are dead wrong (how could a "genius" be wrong so often?) > >>>>>> 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. > Yes. See also Matt Kruse, who demonstrated your point exactly. Works for him! :)
From: S.T. on 22 Feb 2010 19:29 On 2/22/2010 3:40 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: > On 23/02/2010 10:12 AM, S.T. wrote: >> 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. > Thank goodness I'm a part-owner (though not majority) and not all that easy to get rid of. I'm not discussing a client here -- I might not be so cavalier about my decision to write off mobile for the time being were it for a client who's business I did not know inside out. Hell, were it for a client I could milk more billable hours to ensure mobile bliss, regardless of mobile's actual value to that business. Look, I could put up a mobile-friendly version of the site in a matter of days. At present there is little to no value. You don't have to believe me, but at least believe I'm working off more data than my gut instinct and simply maintain I'm interpreting the data wrong. Fact is my resources are better served elsewhere, though admittedly participating in endless loop arguments on cljs might suggest otherwise. >> 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. I'd say "attacking" is overstating my demeanor just a bit, while David being labeled something so innocent as "messenger" is a bit generous. David can't envision a scenario where using one of the major libraries makes sense whereas I'm quite certain there are scenarios where it makes sense and others where it isn't so wise. We appear to be equally baffled by the other's conclusion. There doesn't seem to be much common ground to discuss further.
From: Andrew Poulos on 22 Feb 2010 22:12 On 23/02/2010 11:29 AM, S.T. wrote: > On 2/22/2010 3:40 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: >> On 23/02/2010 10:12 AM, S.T. wrote: >>> 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. >> > > Thank goodness I'm a part-owner (though not majority) and not all that > easy to get rid of. I'm not discussing a client here -- I might not be > so cavalier about my decision to write off mobile for the time being > were it for a client who's business I did not know inside out. Hell, > were it for a client I could milk more billable hours to ensure mobile > bliss, regardless of mobile's actual value to that business. You think that caring about mobile devices is equivalent to defrauding your clients??? > Look, I could put up a mobile-friendly version of the site in a matter > of days. At present there is little to no value. You don't have to > believe me, but at least believe I'm working off more data than my gut > instinct and simply maintain I'm interpreting the data wrong. > > Fact is my resources are better served elsewhere, though admittedly > participating in endless loop arguments on cljs might suggest otherwise. Fact is, I couldn't hire you simply because you don't care about a growing sector of the market. >>> 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. > > I'd say "attacking" is overstating my demeanor just a bit, while David > being labelled something so innocent as "messenger" is a bit generous. Ok, if your prefer, "you appear to continue to fail to address the valid objective criticisms that have been raised". > David can't envision a scenario where using one of the major libraries Yes of course, its David's fault that he publicises faults he finds in GP libraries. > makes sense whereas I'm quite certain there are scenarios where it makes I guess if you can offload the responsibility for things not working (eg. lack of support for mobile devices, or XHTML support) then you're lucky. > sense and others where it isn't so wise. We appear to be equally baffled > by the other's conclusion. There doesn't seem to be much common ground > to discuss further. I doubt anyone wants a discussion per se. I want an argument where one side presents a premise drawn on various facts (which David has done) and the other side counters the premise with facts of their own (which no one appears to have done). Not talking about whether calling David a "messenger" is generous. Andrew Poulos
From: S.T. on 23 Feb 2010 14:25 On 2/22/2010 7:12 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: > On 23/02/2010 11:29 AM, S.T. wrote: >> Thank goodness I'm a part-owner (though not majority) and not all that >> easy to get rid of. I'm not discussing a client here -- I might not be >> so cavalier about my decision to write off mobile for the time being >> were it for a client who's business I did not know inside out. Hell, >> were it for a client I could milk more billable hours to ensure mobile >> bliss, regardless of mobile's actual value to that business. > > You think that caring about mobile devices is equivalent to defrauding > your clients??? The fact is for many business' mobile, at present, is about as useful as a flash-intro page. You know it and I know it. You sell pizzas? OK, mobile might have some value. You sell chemical analysis of dirt soil samples for the oil industry? Mobile has absolutely no value whatsoever. In the future? Perhaps, as who knows for certain. But a client should at least be told your doing extra work and/or constraining design choices based on your speculative assessment of the web's future. "Sure, the layout is pretty lackluster BUT it scales perfectly for 320px browsers for all that mobile traffic headed your way!!! One site to cover it all!!" That's not an example of fraud, it's an example of exaggerating your expertise and, likely, incompetence. >> Fact is my resources are better served elsewhere, though admittedly >> participating in endless loop arguments on cljs might suggest otherwise. > > Fact is, I couldn't hire you simply because you don't care about a > growing sector of the market. Among the list of reasons you couldn't hire me, this one ranks pretty low. >> >> I'd say "attacking" is overstating my demeanor just a bit, while David >> being labelled something so innocent as "messenger" is a bit generous. > > Ok, if your prefer, "you appear to continue to fail to address the valid > objective criticisms that have been raised". While David may have made some valid points and illustrated some errors in the past 2.5 years (really? 30 months of yelling about this?) preaching from his code-perfect pulpit, it's a rare soul that would use the term "objective" when describing that effort. >> David can't envision a scenario where using one of the major libraries > > Yes of course, its David's fault that he publicises faults he finds in > GP libraries. I don't think anyone minds David pointing out flaws. Many find the analysis useful. Rather, it's the inevitable tantrum added to each criticism where he derides every developer for not dropping everything that instant to fix what he's found (or, most often, starting from scratch) and mocking each user for not immediately abandoning all use of a library until it meets his threshhold for perfection. "Publicise" <> http://google.com/search?q=davidmark+site%3Aajaxian.com >> makes sense whereas I'm quite certain there are scenarios where it makes > > I guess if you can offload the responsibility for things not working > (eg. lack of support for mobile devices, or XHTML support) then you're > lucky. I don't know where XHTML came into the conversation. I don't know if the libraries support it or not as, again, I don't care (I'd have to serve it up as text/html anyhow). The only possible merit to XHTML is for machines to more easily read the document -- not too concerned if my client-side scripting works for a spider. >> sense and others where it isn't so wise. We appear to be equally baffled >> by the other's conclusion. There doesn't seem to be much common ground >> to discuss further. > > I doubt anyone wants a discussion per se. I want an argument where one > side presents a premise drawn on various facts (which David has done) > and the other side counters the premise with facts of their own (which > no one appears to have done). Not talking about whether calling David a > "messenger" is generous. No one is claiming the libraries are flawless. I don't know what you (and presumably David) read that suggests otherwise.
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 15:32
S.T. wrote: > On 2/22/2010 7:12 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: >> On 23/02/2010 11:29 AM, S.T. wrote: >>> Thank goodness I'm a part-owner (though not majority) and not all that >>> easy to get rid of. I'm not discussing a client here -- I might not be >>> so cavalier about my decision to write off mobile for the time being >>> were it for a client who's business I did not know inside out. Hell, >>> were it for a client I could milk more billable hours to ensure mobile >>> bliss, regardless of mobile's actual value to that business. >> >> You think that caring about mobile devices is equivalent to defrauding >> your clients??? > > The fact is for many business' mobile, at present, is about as useful as > a flash-intro page. That's nonsensical hyperbole. > You know it and I know it. That's an assertion you aren't qualified to make. > You sell pizzas? OK, > mobile might have some value. You sell chemical analysis of dirt soil > samples for the oil industry? Mobile has absolutely no value whatsoever. That's crazy. Virtually everyone carries a mobile browser these days (and the ones who may be unable to afford such are likely using older browsers and dial-up at home, which IIRC you don't care about either). > > In the future? Perhaps, as who knows for certain. Mobile browsers are important right now (and have been for years). > But a client should at > least be told your doing extra work and/or constraining design choices > based on your speculative assessment of the web's future. What extra work? That's the fallacy in this (and similar) arguments. Doing it right takes no longer than doing it wrong (and doing it wrong leads to making two sites down the road when one would have done). > "Sure, the > layout is pretty lackluster BUT it scales perfectly for 320px browsers > for all that mobile traffic headed your way!!! One site to cover it > all!!" You don't get it at all. Did you look at that example I showed you. Did you consider it lackluster because it only had two columns? How many columns do you think are wise? And BTW, it adjusts to one column in most older mobile devices. Here it is again:- http://www.hartkelaw.net/ Other than it is waiting for a real logo and some real content, what do you find "lackluster" about that? Also, if you use fluid layouts, they will scale, regardless of the number of columns (and more than two is too many anyway). > That's not an example of fraud, it's an example of exaggerating > your expertise and, likely, incompetence. Huh? > >>> Fact is my resources are better served elsewhere, though admittedly >>> participating in endless loop arguments on cljs might suggest otherwise. >> >> Fact is, I couldn't hire you simply because you don't care about a >> growing sector of the market. > > Among the list of reasons you couldn't hire me, this one ranks pretty low. Any time I hear a Web developer telling me they "don't care" about this browser or that sector, I figure that means they just let those break, which is completely incompetent. It's not hard to write documents that work, even in environments that you don't care about. Make no mistake that your end-users don't know (or care) what you care about. All they know is whether your sites work. If your scripts blow up during initialization, there's a good chance that your sites will not work, perhaps wasting the end-users time (e.g. they fill out a form, hit submit and nothing happens). > >>> >>> I'd say "attacking" is overstating my demeanor just a bit, while David >>> being labelled something so innocent as "messenger" is a bit generous. >> >> Ok, if your prefer, "you appear to continue to fail to address the valid >> objective criticisms that have been raised". > > While David may have made some valid points and illustrated some errors > in the past 2.5 years (really? 30 months of yelling about this?) > preaching from his code-perfect pulpit, it's a rare soul that would use > the term "objective" when describing that effort. I never said anything about "perfect code" (mine or otherwise). That's something that they beetle-browed incompetents toss around, but they made it up out of thin air. As for valid points, what are the last five letters in jQuery? What do queries do? They _read_ (or attempt to read) documents. And what did they foul up the worst on? There you go. No amount of Matt Kruse (or the like) dismissing every test case as an attribute (or scenario) they don't care about is going to change that. Then there is the ridiculous height/width code, which makes another important task near impossible. Not just problematic, but virtually impossible in a cross-browser fashion. That's two and if you have read my reviews, you know there are boatloads more. Granted, they have fixed some of them, but where are the thanks for pointing them out? All I hear is that they don't like my "yelling". > >>> David can't envision a scenario where using one of the major libraries >> >> Yes of course, its David's fault that he publicises faults he finds in >> GP libraries. > > I don't think anyone minds David pointing out flaws. Resig - for one - sure seems to. :) > Many find the > analysis useful. Yes, those are called competent developers. Eventually they convince the incompetents. It's like dropping a boulder into a large pond. The waves eventually break on all shores. > Rather, it's the inevitable tantrum added to each > criticism where he derides every developer for not dropping everything > that instant to fix what he's found (or, most often, starting from > scratch) and mocking each user for not immediately abandoning all use of > a library until it meets his threshhold for perfection. That's your own interpretation. I've done nothing but try to help the typical jQuery abuser. I've never blamed the ignorant, but those who attempt to deceive them. > > "Publicise" <> http://google.com/search?q=davidmark+site%3Aajaxian.com Huh? > >>> makes sense whereas I'm quite certain there are scenarios where it makes >> >> I guess if you can offload the responsibility for things not working >> (eg. lack of support for mobile devices, or XHTML support) then you're >> lucky. > > I don't know where XHTML came into the conversation. Somebody else expressed surprise that jQuery doesn't support XHTML (same as Resig did when I pointed it out to him years ago). XHTML served as (and error-corrected to) HTML is not XHTML, but that is beyond the typical neophyte's understanding. > I don't know if the > libraries support it or not as, again, I don't care (I'd have to serve > it up as text/html anyhow). They don't and see above. And no, it's not a crime to forget about real XHTML as it is a dead issue on the Web (and has been for years, save for parts of the mobile sector). > The only possible merit to XHTML is for > machines to more easily read the document -- not too concerned if my > client-side scripting works for a spider. The issue is that library projects like jQuery ignorantly claim to support something they don't. > >>> sense and others where it isn't so wise. We appear to be equally baffled >>> by the other's conclusion. There doesn't seem to be much common ground >>> to discuss further. >> >> I doubt anyone wants a discussion per se. I want an argument where one >> side presents a premise drawn on various facts (which David has done) >> and the other side counters the premise with facts of their own (which >> no one appears to have done). Not talking about whether calling David a >> "messenger" is generous. > > No one is claiming the libraries are flawless. I don't know what you > (and presumably David) read that suggests otherwise. > There's a big difference between flawless and something that falls apart every six months or so, requiring an incompatible "upgrade", re-testing, etc. just to support the latest modern browsers (excepting Opera of course) in their default configurations. It's crazy when you realize that IE8 will be treated (by them) like Opera 6 in a few years (i.e. they won't "care" about it). That's not a sound scripting or business strategy. And then there's the fact that, even with endless "upgrades", they never get anything close to right (e.g. attribute handling in IE, which is hardly a trivial concern for a *query* engine). |