qooxdoo trouble
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Abstractions
Next: have you read emacs manual cover to cover?; (was Do we need a "Stevens" book?)
From: David Mark on 2 Aug 2010 09:29 On Aug 2, 9:11 am, "MarkHanif...(a)gmail.com" <markhanif...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The joke is on you. > > No, the joke is you letting Kenny getting your panties in a bunch. Now the joke *is* you. :) And I couldn't care less what Kenny does. However, there are thousands of other beginners reading his (and now your) ravings. Somebody has to set the record straight.
From: MarkHaniford on 2 Aug 2010 11:18 On Aug 2, 8:29 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 9:11 am, "MarkHanif...(a)gmail.com" <markhanif...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The joke is on you. > > > No, the joke is you letting Kenny getting your panties in a bunch. > > Now the joke *is* you. :) > > And I couldn't care less what Kenny does. However, there are > thousands of other beginners reading his (and now your) ravings. > Somebody has to set the record straight. You're out to set the record straight for "the beginners". Nice one.
From: David Mark on 2 Aug 2010 11:29 On Aug 2, 11:18 am, "MarkHanif...(a)gmail.com" <markhanif...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:29 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 2, 9:11 am, "MarkHanif...(a)gmail.com" <markhanif...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The joke is on you. > > > > No, the joke is you letting Kenny getting your panties in a bunch. > > > Now the joke *is* you. :) > > > And I couldn't care less what Kenny does. However, there are > > thousands of other beginners reading his (and now your) ravings. > > Somebody has to set the record straight. > > You're out to set the record straight for "the beginners". Nice one. Yes. Like those naive enough to dismiss text browsers and agents with "scripting turned off". You're welcome. :)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 2 Aug 2010 11:39 Richard Cornford wrote: > On Aug 2, 12:26 pm, Kenneth Tilton wrote: >> David Mark wrote: > <snip> >>>>> Your site is still a "train wreck" in Safari, many buttons >>>>> don't appear, the tying tutorial is hit and miss. >>>> Works for me in Safari on Windows* and the Mac. And iCab on >>>> the Mac and Chrome on Ubuntu. >>> You are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone has >>> the identical setup. >> Nope, I was just saying, it works for me. A response of the >> same thoroughness and quality and worth as the report. >> >>> And you didn't even ask (or specify) the versions of >>> those browsers. >> Just cutting my losses: setup info is not offered up front >> in this genius NG by people that know better so I have to >> think they are not meant as serious reports. > <snip> > > You appear to be labouring under a misconception that the comments you > have been receiving represent bug or error reports. They are not; > instead they are nothing but a general announcement of the results of > assessing the quality of the 'web application' that you have been > oscillating between calling finished and a train wreck. The initial > assessment of a web application is fairly simple; load it into some > random (but usually fairly common/popular) web browser and see if > operates without script errors, is useable (in the broadest sense) and > (ultimately) does what it is asserted to do. The feedback from such an > assessment might be no more than pointing out the fact that it errors > at some point (as it loads in your case), that it is too slow to be > useable or that the UI does not function in some way in a particular > browser. > > This sort of response is reasonable in the face of assertions such as > that qooxdoo allows an individual to crate a web application in X > weeks of work, because if the 'application' is actually a train wreck > when tired, how long it took to create that train wreck is of not > significance at all (because any fool can rapidly create a train > wreck, with or without qooxdoo). What an independent observer, > interested in qooxdoo is interested in is how long it takes to create > the finished application, where an early symptom of being 'finished' > would be not providing grounds for criticism following relatively > superficial testing. > > Making a proper bug report would imply a desire to help you, and given > your attitude and behaviour in this group over the last year or so I > doubt that there are many left who would consider it worth their > effort to try to help you. On the other hand, even without any desire > to help you there is still the reoccurring warning that what you see > from wherever it you observe from does not correspond with what others > are seeing from wherever they are observing from. It suggests that > chanting "works for me" is not the rout to what independent observers > are going to agree is 'finished'. > > Richard. I laugh in the face of your desperate attempt to get mileage out of my use of the phrase "train wreck". btw, I am not looking for help from anyone, I am just sharing news of a good way to develop web apps: qooxdoo and qooxlisp: http://wiki.github.com/kennytilton/qooxlisp/ The latter is a good way for folks to find out why I have been ranting about Cells for going on 15 years. As for the reports, if someone is going to say "X does not work" I'll check it and if it works for me all I can say absent more compleat info is "X works for me on these stacks". finally, my attitude is not the problem. the problem is the attitude of a vocal few library hating Lord of the Flies wannabes that think they own this NG. They do keep me in shape, however. :) kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 2 Aug 2010 11:47
On Aug 2, 11:39 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Richard Cornford wrote: > > On Aug 2, 12:26 pm, Kenneth Tilton wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > > <snip> > >>>>> Your site is still a "train wreck" in Safari, many buttons > >>>>> don't appear, the tying tutorial is hit and miss. > >>>> Works for me in Safari on Windows* and the Mac. And iCab on > >>>> the Mac and Chrome on Ubuntu. > >>> You are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone has > >>> the identical setup. > >> Nope, I was just saying, it works for me. A response of the > >> same thoroughness and quality and worth as the report. > > >>> And you didn't even ask (or specify) the versions of > >>> those browsers. > >> Just cutting my losses: setup info is not offered up front > >> in this genius NG by people that know better so I have to > >> think they are not meant as serious reports. > > <snip> > > > You appear to be labouring under a misconception that the comments you > > have been receiving represent bug or error reports. They are not; > > instead they are nothing but a general announcement of the results of > > assessing the quality of the 'web application' that you have been > > oscillating between calling finished and a train wreck. The initial > > assessment of a web application is fairly simple; load it into some > > random (but usually fairly common/popular) web browser and see if > > operates without script errors, is useable (in the broadest sense) and > > (ultimately) does what it is asserted to do. The feedback from such an > > assessment might be no more than pointing out the fact that it errors > > at some point (as it loads in your case), that it is too slow to be > > useable or that the UI does not function in some way in a particular > > browser. > > > This sort of response is reasonable in the face of assertions such as > > that qooxdoo allows an individual to crate a web application in X > > weeks of work, because if the 'application' is actually a train wreck > > when tired, how long it took to create that train wreck is of not > > significance at all (because any fool can rapidly create a train > > wreck, with or without qooxdoo). What an independent observer, > > interested in qooxdoo is interested in is how long it takes to create > > the finished application, where an early symptom of being 'finished' > > would be not providing grounds for criticism following relatively > > superficial testing. > > > Making a proper bug report would imply a desire to help you, and given > > your attitude and behaviour in this group over the last year or so I > > doubt that there are many left who would consider it worth their > > effort to try to help you. On the other hand, even without any desire > > to help you there is still the reoccurring warning that what you see > > from wherever it you observe from does not correspond with what others > > are seeing from wherever they are observing from. It suggests that > > chanting "works for me" is not the rout to what independent observers > > are going to agree is 'finished'. > > > Richard. > > I laugh in the face of your desperate attempt to get mileage out of my > use of the phrase "train wreck". Laughter is the best medicine. > > btw, I am not looking for help from anyone, I am just sharing news of a > good way to develop web apps: qooxdoo and qooxlisp: > > http://wiki.github.com/kennytilton/qooxlisp/ Which has been demonstrated to be complete rubbish. > > The latter is a good way for folks to find out why I have been ranting > about Cells for going on 15 years. What folks in here know anything about your 15-year rant? Ah, perhaps you mean that other group. Why don't you leave this one out of it? > > As for the reports, if someone is going to say "X does not work" I'll > check it and if it works for me all I can say absent more compleat info > is "X works for me on these stacks". That's because, absent any sort of experience or ability in this field, you can only observe and shrug. > > finally, my attitude is not the problem. It most assuredly is. > the problem is the attitude of > a vocal few library hating Lord of the Flies wannabes that think they > own this NG. Who would want to be a book? > They do keep me in shape, however. > Training to be a loser? |