qooxlisp live - 3MB bloatware
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: qooxlisp live
Next: ILC 2010 Call for Papers
From: Steve Graham on 8 Jun 2010 18:33 On Jun 8, 4:20 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Steve Graham wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2:00 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snip full quote] > > > Kenny, > > > Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in > > FF or IE. > > Crosspost: 2 newsgroups > Followup-To: 0 newsgroups > Attribution: 1 line > Quotation: 202 lines > New text: 8 - " - > Total: 211 - " - > > You can't be serious. > > <http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting> > > Score adjusted > -- > PointedEars My apologies. Do you have an answer to my question? Steve
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 8 Jun 2010 18:38 David Mark wrote: > Kenneth Tilton wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >> > It's your call, of course. But it's commonly said that for web >> > applications, smaller is better. I think there are good reasons for >> > that. We all know that many websites have so many more bytes wrapped >> > up in their images than in the JS, but every bit of savings that can >> > be squeezed out is useful. >> >> Sure, but considering the application I think I can get away with a few >> second load. To be honest, they'll be waiting longer for the ads if I go >> that route. > > It seems you fail to realize that some users do not have blazing fast > broadband connections. For them the wait to download a document > measured in MB's will be interminable. Face it, despite numerous > warnings, you went ahead with an impossible plan and are now paying > the price. > > And I tried the thing on a blazing fast broadband connection and it > took an infinite amount of time to load (gray screen of death). I find that interesting. Did you try that with the 900K+ version ("2.0") with one script request or the 3M+ one ("1.0") with 200+ script requests? In which browser? As for the rest, I agree for the most part. But will you *please* trim your quotes to the relevant minimum as widely recommended, including the cljs FAQ. (No, I'm not really *asking* you anymore.) I am quite certain that nobody in either newsgroup wants to pick the possible pearls from your 267 lines core dump. As a regular, you should set a *good* example, and if you don't post so that your postings can be easily read, you might as well use a blog instead. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: RobG on 8 Jun 2010 19:25 On Jun 9, 12:34 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Dude, I am sharing a new Javascript framework, not promoting the Algebra > software. Which one? You "shared" Qooxdoo and relevant criticism was dismissed out of hand. You also "shared" jsMath, however given the dismissive response to criticism of Qooxdoo, I doubt anyone is going to bother attempting to review it. jsMath seems to be specially targeted at the display of precisely formatted characters and images, so you need specialist advice about both scripting and CSS to get information about the best way to get the required layout and appearance (I'll assumed you know what that should be). I suggest you ask in a group specialising in CSS and probably HTML if you want opinions about those technologies. > Someone decided to go OT and root around in my sig for further > opportunities to be a Usenet jerk. You posted it in your sig, presumably to promote a product. I was interested in it, perhaps it really is a good product. I was curious why software that apparently doesn't have a Mac or browser version was reviewed by a Mac magazine. > Meanwhile, fifteen years after the fact two educators separately and > independently dug me up and asked if there is any way they could get the > old version running since even now there is nothing like it and since it > really helped their students significantly. Is that a plea for help to create a browser version of the software? If that's what you want, just ask, you may be surprised at the help you get. > Why are you guys so negative? Why so defensive? Why not just say: "Hey, this thing used to have a highly regarded Mac version before the web, now I'm creating a browser version and I could really do with some help with <whatever>." You've been given advice that Qooxdoo is not a good choice of library, even the guys at Ajaxian have got the message about browser sniffing. You've been offered help and an alternative (free) library that you dismissed out of hand because you didn't like the attitude of those who suggested it. You even received quite a number of responses about your demo site, so a number of posters here took the time to visit, wait for the download possibly a number of times in various browsers and report back their issues. If you want naive back-slapping and cheery congratulations, ask the Ajaxian guys to post a puff-piece, I'm sure they'll oblige. -- Rob -- Rob
From: Kenneth Tilton on 8 Jun 2010 22:57 Steve Graham wrote: > On Jun 8, 2:00 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >>>> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >>>>>> RobG wrote: >>> (RE:http://www.teamalgebra.com/) >>>>>>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load. >>>>>> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the >>>>>> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s. >>>>> I tested with a very fast connection and fast computer, and it never >>>>> loaded in less than 8 seconds. >>>> Yeah, I lied. I get 11s or so. The 4-5s was what I remembered from >>>> loading from localhost. >>> As others have pointed out, you need to look at overall size and see >>> if the download time for that amount of data is likely to be >>> acceptable to your target audience and their infrastructures. >> Sure. Right now she loads for me in a couple of seconds. My audience is >> students or tutors sitting down to learn/teach Algebra for 30-60min >> depending on how much fun they are having with who else is on line. I >> think a couple of seconds wait will be bearable. I had a spinning wheel >> animated gif going earlier but decided it was not worth it. >> >> >> >>>>> Testing now at home over a mediocre >>>>> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache. >>>> I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see >>>> it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that. >>> If you can't wait around for your own demo to load, you might want to >>> reconsider the demo. >> No, I am too smart to wait around for something obviously pathological >> (I can see the server feeding files one by one instead of in a blur). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s. >>> What do you mean by "resetting the browser"? >>>>>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not >>>>>> nothing, but should be even better. >>>>> There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB >>>>> (unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively >>>>> simple page? >>>> I think it's like Lisp applications: even "Hello World" will end up with >>>> most of Lisp in there. One could go crazy trying to have a build >>>> procedure take out uneccessary code, but then (a) how much would one >>>> save and (b) why bother? These frameworks are for RIAs, which will >>>> indeed use many components of a framework. The only beneficiary would be >>>> small demos, which I suspect is not worth the trouble. And libraries are >>>> pyramids -- that "simple" demo uses a nice variety of widgets, including >>>> a remote table with scrolling, movable and hidable columns, one column >>>> data renderer, and probably reaches down into a lot of code. >>> It's your call, of course. But it's commonly said that for web >>> applications, smaller is better. I think there are good reasons for >>> that. We all know that many websites have so many more bytes wrapped >>> up in their images than in the JS, but every bit of savings that can >>> be squeezed out is useful. >> Sure, but considering the application I think I can get away with a few >> second load. To be honest, they'll be waiting longer for the ads if I go >> that route. >> >> >> >>> And I didn't mean to dismiss the complexity of your demo. It wasn't >>> until today when I tried it in Safari and Chrome that I really even >>> saw the extent of it. 989K still sounds like a lot, but not nearly as >>> badly so as what I saw not really doing anything in FF and IE. >> David did not like my point, but I think it valid: with big frameworks >> the first bite is ineluctably huge. Libraries are pyramidal, and a >> simple button can pull in a lot of the library code. The good news is >> they grow slowly thereafter, so I know now pretty much how big my full >> rollout will be. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the >>>>>>>> thing into submission. >>>>>>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks. >>>>>> I try. >>>>> You try to what, annoy the hell out of everyone here? >>>> I believe the people annoyed are the ones who hope to be both annoyed >>>> and annoying, aka, mindlessly abusive of anyone not using raw HTML. Yes, >>>> it gives me great pleasure to annoy them, since they are the ones being >>>> bullies and they totally need to be laughed at, not listened to. >>> Come on, posting a demo that doesn't work properly and then prickling >>> at criticisms of it is not going to win you a Good Netizen award. >>> Imagine this instead: >>> |>>>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks. >>> |>>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I *thought* I'd checked it in all major recent >>> |>>> browsers. I'll post a new version as soon as I work out this >>> bug. >>> That would not earn you particularly many rebukes. >>>> You have a sick little cult in this NG, self-important and posturing, >>> s/You/We. >>> You're posting here too. >>>> utterly convinced of themselves while the silent majority just rolls >>>> their eyes at them and gets on with their work. Speaking of which... >>> There is plenty of ego in this group, and it certainly has more than >>> its share of pedantic nonsense. But you are posting your demo here >>> for some reason. Is it just ego-gratification, do you simply want to >>> show the world how smart you are? Or do you think there is >>> pedagogical value in sharing this with other people interested in >>> Javascript? Or are you here like most people asking for discussion, >>> critiques, suggestions for your code? >>> If it's the latter, then I think you need to be a little less >>> defensive and to listen a little more carefully. >> No, I am incredibly busy with real work and just taking a moment to >> share something with other people excited about technology. The >> anti-library crowd in here is just how I get the publicity. >> >> I like sharing cool technology, and qooxlisp is that. I know well, >> however, that doing o/s increases the effort of developing something by >> a factor of 27, possibly 81. Me not go there, got Algebra to do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." >>>>>>>> Macworld >>>>>>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious. >>>>>> You never heard of Macworld? >>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I... >>>>> returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference? >>>> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough >>>> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it. >>> I'm not. >>> I am getting confused though between your demo, the software you say >>> received such high praise and the software that -- is it web software >>> that you're currently developing? Your quote, in this context, >>> sounded like it was supposed to be related to the software relevant >>> for this group. >> It was in my sig. It mentioned Algebra clearly both times. I have been >> talking about and demoing a Lisp+qooxdoo framework, and did not say a >> word about Algebra until one of the hyenas started chewing on it for no >> reason other than to have an opportunity for more abuse. >> >> I owe the hyena a beer for the excuse to spam that, tho. >> >> >> >>>>> Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991? >>>> No, it was written originally for the Mac, in C. The defter of the >>>> intellects in this group might be able to figure out I have decided to >>>> release it as a web app, hence qooxlisp. ie, plaintiff was confusing the >>>> present with the past. >>> The confusion is not surprising. You're here discussing some software >>> that you're releasing, but seem to be promoting it with a quote that >>> long predates this new software. >> See above. My other sig quotes Elwood P. Dowd about the importance of >> being pleasant. Does anyone think I am selling DVDs of Harvey when I >> post about JS above that sig? >> >> kt > > Kenny, > > Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in > FF or IE. Sorry, is that a typo? Did you mean "yet to see it load /as fast/ in FF or IE"? If not a typo: what I have indeed seen is a bizarro gray screen of nothing in a browser that had loaded the prior version and then after me doing absolutely nothing more than wait a couple of minutes the same browser loads OK. My sense is of the browser having something cached, tho I have tried resetting these recalcitrant browsers sans effect -- and then the same ones suddenly work. What I have not seen is a browser go backwards, so with luck I'll never have to track this down. Nor have I seen a browser/OS combo fail the first time tried, not counting IE (and it's hard to count that POS). kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: Kenneth Tilton on 9 Jun 2010 05:10
> Kenny, > > Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in > FF or IE. Try it now. I just updated the thing /not/ to use console.log. Slipped my mind to get those out of there before releasing, but one of the qooxdoo guys guessed what I was doing, enabled Firebug on the recalcitrant browsers and reports that fixed it....ah, IE was the only one not working for me and with those calls out of there it now works. The anti-library guys must be feeling the walls closing in. Anyway, check it out fast: http://teamalgebra.com/ because she'll be coming down in a few days: I just realized I grabbed a 64-bit Amazon instance cuz the Lisp I had was 64-bit and those instances are $7/day, not the low-end $2. That's a bit much for just the pleasure of torturing the Anti-Sniffers. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld |