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: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 18:00 On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Where is your evidence? I would guess that the number of people who > > access the web via mobile device is in the single-digit percentages. > We had this discussion years ago. Virtually everybody has a phone. Disagree > Virtually all phones have browsers (and have for years). Disagree > So re-read > what I said as you seem to be responding to something other point. I'm responding to your exaggeration: "Virtually everyone carries a mobile browser these days". > And so what if only single digit percentages use the browsers regularly? > And that's just a guess on your part anyway. Indeed. It might be high. > >> Mobile browsers are important right now (and have been for years). > > They are somewhat important, to some people. Certainly not a priority > > for most. Yet. > And, as for the "yet" bit. Do you plan to go back and re-write every > site you ever made whenever you feel like mobile "matters?" Probably, because I think desktop browsers and mobile browsers justify two different approaches to presenting the content, and m.mysite.com is a smart move for now. Also, since most sites won't be concerned about mobile traffic right now, it's best for most of them to not worry about it in the near future until things settle down a bit and the direction and technology of the mobile web is more solid. Investing now simply won't pay off for most companies, IMO. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 18:03 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:12 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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). > > Done many, many times. And unilaterally, unjustifiably dismissed every > time by DM. No, that's the opposite of what occurred. Every time I point out one of jQuery's many flaws, you claim it isn't something you care about. What are the last five letters in jQuery, again? If it can't _read_ dcouments straight, it is a failure. It doesn't matter if you "don't care" about attribute X or Y (or heights, widths, etc.) Virtually none of the mentioned shortcomings are documented either, so how would you know what you are supposed to "care" about? :) Did you care about ActiveX being disabled in corporate environments before I pointed out that jQuery would unceremoniously blow up in such cases or were you oblivious like the jQuery developers? Yeah, they eventually fixed it (after I beat them over the head with it for _years_), but think of how many scattered versions of jQuery there are out there right now (many of which exhibit this fatal flaw). Maybe if you had listened instead of dismissing everything as "edge cases", things wouldn't be such a mess (after all, Resig and co. listen to you at least some of the time). > > DM has answers for people who fit exactly within the constraints that > he places on how software should be written. That's ridiculous. If you can't measure an element's dimensions or read its attributes with any reasonable reliability, you can't possibly have a firm DOM scripting foundation. When has such folly ever worked (for any sort of software). It's like a calculator that sometimes gives the wrong answers (and degrades over time without constant, expensive maintenance until all of the answers are wrong). Endless rewrites are not a good strategy for the Web (for reasons that I hope are obvious by now). > Unfortunately, most of > the development world finds themselves in very different situations, > where his answers don't fit. That's pure lunacy. Often I'm the guy they call to clean up their messes (and the cleanup techniques haven't changed much over the years). If you would just learn instead of fixating on the messenger, you would understand. > And then he screams louder and stomps his > feet because no one will listen to him. I'd say that nobody is listening to _you_ at this point (and I'm definitely a different story). > > He reminds me of the linux zealots who just can't understand how > _anyone_ could continue using Windows, who constantly reminds everyone > how broken Windows is, who blogs about its problems and errors, and > who designs the coolest, most awesome software for linux users but > doesn't understand why it hasn't revolutionized the world yet. The > fact is, most people use Windows. And if you don't understand why, and > you refuse to understand why, and you are incapable of understanding > all the factors that go into the decision, and you stubbornly insist > that everyone is wrong and should switch to linux immediately, then > you're going to continue preaching your sermon to an empty church. All irrelevant apples and oranges (as usual). Where's your brain? > And > you're going to continue having little if any impact on the world > around you. Which is exactly where DM finds himself. And yet he still > can't quite figure out why. That's also ridiculous. I've had far more impact on your "real world" than you care to admit. Who is it that keeps getting things fixed in jQuery (for example?) Sure as hell not you. In fact, you have tried to parrot my ideas to jQuery from time to time and are usually shouted down. We've seen it over and over, so why continue to delude yourself? > > Question: If DM has the answer that most people should be looking for, > why aren't most people following his suggestions? But they do (albeit years later in most cases). You are just being disingenuous (also as usual). > > Answer: Because he doesn't understand what most people are looking > for, and doesn't have a real answer for those people anyway. > You are not one to comment on understanding; that's for sure. ;)
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 18:08 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Where is your evidence? I would guess that the number of people who >>> access the web via mobile device is in the single-digit percentages. >> We had this discussion years ago. Virtually everybody has a phone. > > Disagree You are just indefatigably disagreeable. I can't help you there. > >> Virtually all phones have browsers (and have for years). > > Disagree Same. Even throw-away phones have had browsers since the middle part of the last decade. Where have you been? > >> So re-read >> what I said as you seem to be responding to something other point. > > I'm responding to your exaggeration: "Virtually everyone carries a > mobile browser these days". > >> And so what if only single digit percentages use the browsers regularly? >> And that's just a guess on your part anyway. > > Indeed. It might be high. Or low. So why throw out made-up statistics? > >>>> Mobile browsers are important right now (and have been for years). >>> They are somewhat important, to some people. Certainly not a priority >>> for most. Yet. >> And, as for the "yet" bit. Do you plan to go back and re-write every >> site you ever made whenever you feel like mobile "matters?" > > Probably, because I think desktop browsers and mobile browsers justify > two different approaches to presenting the content, and m.mysite.com > is a smart move for now. No, it is actually _less_ smart today as the two are obviously converging. And I didn't have problems with most of the older phones either. > > Also, since most sites won't be concerned about mobile traffic right > now, it's best for most of them to not worry about it in the near > future until things settle down a bit and the direction and technology > of the mobile web is more solid. Investing now simply won't pay off > for most companies, IMO. > Investing? Two sites are more expensive than one. ;) Furthermore, one site that (sort of) works on the desktop, but blows up in mobile devices is certainly a bad idea.
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 18:14 Matt Kruse wrote: [...] > > He reminds me of the linux zealots who just can't understand how > _anyone_ could continue using Windows, who constantly reminds everyone > how broken Windows is, who blogs about its problems and errors, and > who designs the coolest, most awesome software for linux users but > doesn't understand why it hasn't revolutionized the world yet. The > fact is, most people use Windows. And, though irrelevant to browser scripting, perhaps you missed the success of the new Macs. Put a hell of dent in Windows, didn't they? And what do they run? ;)
From: Garrett Smith on 23 Feb 2010 19:33
S.T. wrote: > We're gonna have to agree to disagree on the main premise, whether > jQuery actually works. You're telling me it doesn't work and is chock > full of errors, but that doesn't match my experience. > What it means for something to work is that that thing fulfills a contract of functioning in the way it has been specified to function. If JQuery is expected to be a "cross browser, CSS3 Compliant" selector engine, as the website states, then jQuery does not work. JQuery is not a "CSS3 Compliant" selector engine. Other claims on jQuery homepage include: "fast and concise" and "lightweight footprint". When compared to something like Dojo, those claims may seem correct, but then almost anything is lightweight compared to Dojo except maybe Ext-js (YUI 3 bulking, too). The other things on the jQuery homepage include graphics, lists of well-known companies using jQuery, lists of books on jQuery. Seminars on learning jQuery. All of these things contribute to appeal to popularity, but cannot be used as stipulations for defining "works". If, however, by "works", you mean that you used it did what you wanted, then we have a different definition of "works". [...] -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |