New Dojo Site--Most incompetent ever?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Javascript Toolbox - Table Sort utility - Column Width cannot be set.
Next: FireFoc support forums (Re: FF3.6 Stack output from Too MuchRecursion)
From: Eric Bednarz on 10 Mar 2010 20:22 "S.T." <anon(a)anon.com> writes: > Put it this way, if a browser comes out and cannot successfully handle > <a href="page.php?a=1&b=2">link</a> -- it's not going to have any > market share to warrant consideration. That is *one* (1) example to support your thesis. Browsers with any market share commonly support at least 96 counter examples. <http://bednarz.nl/tmp/entref/>
From: Garrett Smith on 10 Mar 2010 20:38 Eric Bednarz wrote: > "S.T." <anon(a)anon.com> writes: > >> Put it this way, if a browser comes out and cannot successfully handle >> <a href="page.php?a=1&b=2">link</a> -- it's not going to have any >> market share to warrant consideration. > > That is *one* (1) example to support your thesis. Browsers with any > market share commonly support at least 96 counter examples. > > <http://bednarz.nl/tmp/entref/> > Good example, it is also important consider characters that need to be percent-encoded, such as: (, ), %. And that's just for A href. If the HTML is valid, the program can be focused more on the requirements problems and not how browsers handle errors. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Andrew Poulos on 10 Mar 2010 21:20 On 10/03/2010 10:11 PM, David Mark wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>> On Mar 10, 5:42 am, David Mark<dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> S.T. wrote: >>>>> On 3/8/2010 1:04 AM, David Mark wrote: >>>>>> What experienced developers? What Web? Where? And scales?! I've yet >>>>>> to see a site out of this bunch (even a basic page) that doesn't >>>>>> download ten times what it should. A quick glance shows that the front >>>>>> (well only) page of the aforementioned Foundation site weighs in at:- >>>>>> Total HTTP Requests: 45 >>>>>> Total Size: 454259 bytes >>>>> On dojotoolkit.com? >>>> No. >>> Where then? >>> >> >> Groan. You again? > > Here you go:- > > JavaScript - http://www.dojofoundation.org/ > Timeout thread: delay 0 ms > Unhandled exception: [Object DOMException] > name: Error > message: SYNTAX_ERR > stacktrace: n/a; see opera:config#UserPrefs|Exceptions Have Stacktrace > > In Opera 10 no less. And check out the "layout" in anything less than a > maximized browser at a very high resolution. You can bet the developers > never did. ;) For me Opera 10.01 1893 says Error! Could not connect to remote server You tried to access the address http://www.dojofoundation.org/, which is currently unavailable. Please make sure that the Web address (URL) is correctly spelled and punctuated, then try reloading the page. Andrew Poulos
From: David Mark on 11 Mar 2010 01:16 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> David Mark wrote: >>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:42 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> S.T. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2010 1:04 AM, David Mark wrote: > > > [...] > >>> The problem is the code itself. The code is large. There is disturbingly >>> faulty logic in the core of dojo itself (some of it discussed in this NG >>> archives). >> >> It's the tip of the iceberg. Wait until you see my review of Dojo 1.4 >> (coming soon to cinsoft.net). Of course, it looks very much like Dojo >> 1.3 as nobody over there touches the core, which is understandable once >> you grasp the depth of their misunderstandings (who wants to fiddle with >> a foundation that they can't even explain). >> > > The core has many dependencies and so trying to adjust that, with so > many things that require it, is a risk. I assume by dependencies, you mean the modules built on top of the core. Yes, there are a lot of them (they tend to throw anything and everything in there, regardless of whether it actually works). But if you know what you are doing (and ostensibly _somebody_ involved with that project does), it's not that bad. Lots of interdependencies in the core itself, but that's more of an inconvenience than a real issue. The thing is, most of the individual modules are pretty basic. Their biggest claim to "fame" is that they have a bunch of widgets, supposedly by IBM, but in reality the work of someone called "bill". They are some pretty awful widgets and somehow their focus is adding more "themes" (they have all of two, with a distinct style sheet per widget), rather than making the widget code competent. Anyway, I did most of the heavy lifting already (particularly in the core). But then it became apparent that the other contributors didn't see the whole as a mess and only wanted to discuss one tiny patch at a time (which would mean completing the transformation would take approximately fifty years). :( > OTOH, the problems won't go away > by ignoring them. Ain't that the truth. > Fixing the problems sounds like a good idea, but then > there would have to be somebody capable of doing that, and if it is > going to be done by the original authors, then much learning should take > place prior to doing that (or different mistakes will be made). Exactly! But, oddly enough, the original authors don't see it that way. :) In fact, the very idea that so many changes (in code and understanding) could be needed caused a complete nullification. > > Regaring your review, I would like to suggest the following document: > > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/notes/review/ Yes, I've read it. IIRC, I agreed with much of it. > > I'd also like comments on how it can be improved. I'll see if I can make some time for that, but I am swamped at the moment. > >>> Projects that have used Dojo FWIS, tended to have performance issues and >>> take too much effort to maintain. >> >> Yes. >> >>> Significantly larger projects (72+ man months) having a poor outcome or >>> total failure is a more significant failure than a smallish website that >>> throws a few errors and hangs for two seconds. The dojofoundation isn't >>> much worse than any other pop website nowadays. >>> >> >> Er, size your browser window down a few notches... :) > > The Dojo site is a fine incompetence exemplar, but so are others. I was referring to the Foundation site. I've never seen anything quite so resolution-challenged. It's like the developer(s) had their browsers maximized at a relatively high resolution during the entire testing process (assuming there was a testing process). And the fact that it is throwing exceptions in brand new browsers (e.g. Opera 10) goes to show how anything based on Dojo (even basic pages by the authors/supporters of the library) falls apart in short order (requiring a huge upgrade ordeal). There's a business opportunity in there somewhere as I know a lot of companies are currently stuck in such endless cycles behind their firewalls. I'm working on that as part of my new site. I can offer a far more future-proof Dojo or fix the one they have. > > A bad corporate website is not nearly as bad as a large corporate > software project failing. Half a million dollars is not something that > should be thrown in the trash. That's what I'm talking about. ;)
From: David Mark on 11 Mar 2010 01:32
Garrett Smith wrote: > Eric Bednarz wrote: >> "S.T." <anon(a)anon.com> writes: >> >>> Put it this way, if a browser comes out and cannot successfully handle >>> <a href="page.php?a=1&b=2">link</a> -- it's not going to have any >>> market share to warrant consideration. >> >> That is *one* (1) example to support your thesis. Browsers with any >> market share commonly support at least 96 counter examples. >> >> <http://bednarz.nl/tmp/entref/> >> > > Good example, it is also important consider characters that need to be > percent-encoded, such as: (, ), %. > > And that's just for A href. > > If the HTML is valid, the program can be focused more on the > requirements problems and not how browsers handle errors. And isn't that the pitch of these things? They want to save everyone from the rigors of front-end development, yet their developers are almost exclusively from the "just gettin' stuff done" school where anything goes, so long as they can see it "work" in their test browsers. Of course, the marketers and shills put a different spin on it. They are just being "pragmatic" (and some actually _believe_ that BS). I guess it's not a lie if you believe it. :) |