SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 88
  1. #51
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    First, you say you know "enough" C and C# that you should know what that code represents, yet you couldn't identify one of the simplest tools from .NET 3.0, the Lambda expression. For those who won't know what this does, it takes in a set of parameters and checks to see if they're all empty.
    Uhm no... I was more confused by the "why is this even a function"... It's not like C# treats functions like macros. Function call for one return operation in a non-scripted language where 'visibility' is a non-issue? that's just bad code; as I said, a "far call for nothing". You know what a far call is, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    Secondly, you again mention C, which has little to nothing to do with C#.
    Do you open and close code blocks with curly brackets? do you use the ++, --, +=, -=, &&, || operators? Do you use () around function parameters and do double-quotes do parsing while single quotes do not? SOUNDS like C to me.

    C# is just C that's had a proper object model placed atop it and runs in bytecode interpreter that tries to JIT where it's efficient to do so. That's it. It is a C Syntax language.

    C syntax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of C-based programming languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    C# is C with some window dressing. PHP is C with sliding doors. PERL is C with a doggy in the window. Java is C with a porthole at sea. They are all derive from the same syntax, and apart from some minor structural differences on how objects are shoe-horned into them and some minor differences on variable handling, it's almost ridiculous for them to be considered separate languages.

    Which is one of the great ironies that the most needlessly cryptic and self-obfuscating languages that makes NO provisions to prevent mistakes and is harder to program than the low level code it's supposed to make easier -- became the template for so many others to emulate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    I'm glad you brought this up, because it's more often than not flat out wrong when compared to the likes of C++.
    Well, C++ has it's own set of problems, like objects being shoe-horned into it any old way and flushing anything resembling proper memory handling or range checking down the toilet. (yes, Modula-2 and Smalltalk guy talking)

    Though really, not all compilers -- or over-glorified interpreters are created equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    Theoretically, there is no reason why C# code should be slower than C++ code
    Unless you count JIT compilation during runtime; Compilation takes a LOT of time -- Java and .Net get around this by using a bytecode pre-compiler for distribution, but every time that JIT compiler kicks in you get a performance delay as the code hangs... INSIDE the JIT codesection (not all blocks can be JIT compiled and/or would take longer than to just interpret them -- hence the 'virtual CPU' in both .Net and Java)... Once you run the compiled code optimized for the processor you can be as fast or faster (for the reasons you mentioned of being hardware specific optimizations) but you get anything that's not a tight loop; That's always been where JIT has been best is inside tight code loops... and even then it can't compare to an optimized executable -- but of course with most software distributed as binaries you're very unlikely to come across anything compiled properly for your machine... Well, unless you're one of those Gentoo nuts who spend more time compiling, recompiling and compiling again their OS and EVERY SINGLE application they run than they do on actual work.

    The biggest hole in so called "virtual machines' like Java and .Net comes when it's time to talk to real hardware. Everything is isolated and thrice-wrapped with extra code... Read a keystroke; wait a lifetime... Read from disk... Wait so long it can at times make PHP look peppy depending on the operation... talk to the network... There's a reason uTorrent and Transmission make Azureus look like a useless rinky broken toy. You'd think it was a over-glorified interpreter with JIT thrown on top where possible or something.

    But of course, that's why GWBasic from Dos 3.3 can actually be as fast as Java at many tasks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    The reason why the likes of Java and C# are often as fast as C++ when doing typical tasks is because the JVM and the .NET framework are two of the most optimised and efficient bits of software in the world, and are the result of thousands of man years.
    ... and GCC isn't? :/

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    Additionally, the JIT complication of IL is optimised for the system the runtime is on, whereas for C++ it is optimised for minimum requirements.
    Uhm... no... see, there are these things called Compiler flags? Multi-target executables?

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    There are benchmarks out there that state that C# can outperform C++ on certain tasks like working with string collections
    Tight loops -- and it really hinges on WHICH C++ and which compiler flags are used. I mean, are you talking GCC (painfully slow compilation, more painful execution even with the right processor flags, but can target HOW MANY processors?!?), MS C++ (slow to COMPILE, fast execution), Embarcawhateverthedeviltheyrecalled C++ Builder (formerly Borland C++, blazingly fast compilation, middle of the road execution times; Fastest execution times if you go all the way back to Borland C++ 4.5 -- but since that's still mostly win16 developement)...

    A lot of times people blame the language when it's the compiler or interpreter that are the problem.

    (though I still think C and Unix are a hoax)

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    but I've never been a fan of any benchmarks as there are so many relevant factors not tested. I'd sooner listen to a SEO analyst talk about getting to the top of Google than listen to someone talk about benchmarks relating to their favourite tools.
    Which I agree with -- usually whoever's running in favor of one compiler or the other uses some subtle trickery (like the wrong compiler flags) to make their pet toy look best. You want to make C++ look good, do some non-memory one-off operations. Want to make .NET or Java look good? Load a bunch of stuff into memory (not timing how long the load takes) and then perform some memory only operations with tight loops -- while using the compiler flags on C++ to target a P3 ONLY instead of a multi-target executable with support for things like SSE.

    It's actually why a lot of x64 versions of software are performing better despite the increase in memory overhead. The earliest Clawhammer had SSE2 support -- while many people compiling for 32 bit x86 are still 'afraid' to enable SSE2 because it wont run on a P3...

    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    I'll leave this with one point; bytecode managed languages make programmers faster, and programmer time is worth far more than program time.
    I don't see why how the code runs should have an impact -- or why we couldn't have an actual C# compiler -- It's a great improvement upon C, it would be even better with the option for native executables OR open deployment.

    ... which is where the REAL advantages of .NET and Java are, deployment. Dependency hell, DLL hell, minor underying OS differences breaking executable compatibility or a stiff breeze hitting linus making him change the entire underlying hardware API -- These are things Java and .Net devs rarely have to worry about.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this "C# is unrelated to C" nonsense from... unless you mean that it ripped off 'uses' clause from UCSD Pascal/Object Pascal... and calls it "using" instead. I think that might be what I like about C# actually, it's Modula-2's structure with C syntax. Almost reminds me of Eiffel.

  2. #52
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This tutorial covers defining a site in Dreamweaver. You should not attempt to create your website until you define it. The reasons for this are:

    You will most likely have problems with your navigation and images appearing if you don't.

    It is a good idea to have your site organized. If you do not think about your site structure before designing, you most likely will have a big mess of files and folders that will become cumbersome to manage. If you define your site prior to creating it, Dreamweaver handles the file structure beautifully.

    You can use Dreamweaver's built-in FTP to upload your website without a hitch.

    Your links can be tracked and maintained easily.

    When creating your website, you need to designate a root folder or another term is root directory. This is where all the files and folders of your website will be contained. Think of your root folder as the root folder on your web host. It is up to you how many directories you will need within your root folder. If your site is a small site, with only 5-10 pages, you may want to just have your web pages within your root folder without any sub directories, but if your site is larger, and especially if you expect it to grow over time, you might want to consider having each page in it's own directory.
    <snip />
    Last edited by SpacePhoenix; Jul 18, 2011 at 23:54. Reason: removed fake signature

  3. #53
    SitePoint Member graemep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use Komodo Edit for HTML, Django Templates (HTML plus Django template tags) and Python.

    It has auto-completion, syntax checking, some useful extensions, and you it is very similar to Komodo's IDE. It has an HTML preview that will either use the file, or associate a file with a URL (useful for templates).

  4. #54
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post

    Honestly if you're on a Mac and looking for anything MORE that Text Wrangler, you're probably over-reliant on "tools" and looking to take shortcuts that will bite you in the backside in the long term.

    Though when I'm stuck on a Quackintosh, I usually install fusion or virtualBox in seamless .
    Thanks for confirming that Text Wrangler is about as basic as you can get. I spent the past week with Text Wrangler, my browsers and an FTP, and am getting a general idea of what DW was doing behind the scenes.

    The thing that caught my eye was your mention of VirtualBox. I was thinking about using it for testing my local files live on the PC. I've used Browser Lab but it only gives you a snapshot. With VB it is it possible to install more than one version of IE? I guess the question is also, is it ever possible to have more than one version of a browser?

    I'd also welcome any other general comments on Virtual Box. At this point the only thing I'd want to run on it would be browsers.

    Thanks,
    Laura

  5. #55
    SitePoint Member graemep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use Virtual Box to run IE 6 on Linux for testing. It works very well.

    Of course, because each Virtual Box VM needs a complete OS install, it uses a lot of disk space and memory, but that is OK if you are just using for testing.

    Your mention of FTP brings up another plus of Komodo Edit. It can open files on a remote server over SFTP or FTP (I hope you are not using plain insecure FTP to a remote server). It is the only really seamless remote file editor I have used apart from the KDE ones which would be a nuisance to install on Mac or Windows (there are a lot of editors I have never used, so there are probably other good alternatives).

  6. #56
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by graemep View Post
    I use Virtual Box to run IE 6 on Linux for testing. It works very well.

    Of course, because each Virtual Box VM needs a complete OS install, it uses a lot of disk space and memory, but that is OK if you are just using for testing.

    Your mention of FTP brings up another plus of Komodo Edit. It can open files on a remote server over SFTP or FTP (I hope you are not using plain insecure FTP to a remote server). It is the only really seamless remote file editor I have used apart from the KDE ones which would be a nuisance to install on Mac or Windows (there are a lot of editors I have never used, so there are probably other good alternatives).
    So would you need a separate VB for each version of a browser (say if I wanted to test on IE6, 7, and 8)? If this is so, can I run more than one VB at a time?

  7. #57
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use the Windows 7 Virtual XP mode to run IE6, IE7, IE8 and EI9 al standalone installs - works perfectly.

  8. #58
    SitePoint Member graemep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You need a VirtualBox VM for each OS install. You may or may not need multiple Windows installations to run multiple versions of IE - I think its the easiest way to do it.

    I think what Stormrider is doing is just that, but using Virtual PC instead of Virtual Box.

    You can run multiple Virtual Boxes at once, provided you have enough memory - but an extra GB or two of RAM is not that expensive if you find you need it.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I run a VB with WinXP for IE6, another VB with WinXP for IE7 (but also using Tredosoft Multiple IE for copies of 3-6 there too... you need the real native IE6 for Javascript, Flash and excellent IE6 testing, but little things like layouts can be sleazed through with Tredosoft if it's minor), and I happen to have another whole machine for IE8.

    So yes as others have said, you need multiple somethings with their own copy of the OS, and yes, with Virtual Box you can run a bunch of them at the same time if your computer can handle it. You can also set how much memory they get, so they don't have to get too hefty if you don't want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusty
    PERL is C with a doggy in the window.
    It's Perl, not PERL. I should slap you. :) And it has a camel in the window.

    Perl is indeed based somewhat on C... and sed, awk, and shell scripting... and then it steals from everything else, like Lisp and Haskell and also Ruby, Python, Perl 6 and everyone else.
    ...Except PHP. I don't think they take anything from PHP.

    ...it's almost ridiculous for them to be considered separate languages.
    <----------------- Perl Java----------------------------->

    Hm, they both use {}, () and English letters...

  10. #60
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While we're on the subject of VirtualBox, it's also great for running local test or dev servers. I always build a linux install for them instead of trying to install XAMPP, LAMP, etc on my main OSes (that way I don't have all those extra processes when I'm not working ).

  11. #61
    I Use MODx kenquad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I use the Windows 7 Virtual XP mode to run IE6, IE7, IE8 and EI9 al standalone installs - works perfectly.
    4 different IE's on one Windows 7??? Could you elaborate a bit more on how you do this?

  12. #62
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/vir.../download.aspx

    You must have Windows 7 Professional or above to use it.

    It basically lets you install a legitimate copy of Windows XP, without owning a license, in a virtual machine (vs. VirtualBox, where you must own your own copy of Windows XP to install it there).

    You would create a couple virtual machines and just have a different copy of IE on each one.

  13. #63
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, you can use it in Home edition as well. The only difference is that Pro comes with an XP licence included. If you already have one, you can do the same on the home edition.

  14. #64
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    I lied cause I haven't yet set it up with IE9, but this is IE6, IE7 and IE8 running at the same time, IE6 and IE7 in their own virtual machines, and IE8 running on W7.

  15. #65
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Actually, you can use it in Home edition as well. The only difference is that Pro comes with an XP licence included. If you already have one, you can do the same on the home edition.
    Didn't know that. Thanks. =p

  16. #66
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I dislike "XP virtual mode" just because on my systems it's an unstable wreck -- but it's based on Microsoft Virtual PC (hell, it IS microsoft Virtual PC) a program M$ has been crapping all over ever since they bought it up from Connectix. There's a reason nobody uses the Mac version anymore and use VirtualBox or Parallels instead. Funny since a decade ago I was using Connectix Virtual PC on both PC and Mac to do the exact same thing -- It's just aged... poorly.

    Especially on Win7... "Virtual PC" just gets buggier and buggier with every update -- to the point you'd be better off using the old Connectix 2.2 release than the current one... The only good thing about it is it's free if you have Pro+... If you already have a XP license around (dead laptops and P3's dime a dozen) I wouldn't bother with it -- though it's a good stopgap if you lack such things.

    Though I also use VirtualBox to run two different linux installs, a copy of Haiku, and OSX 10.6 for testing as well... and a copy of 98 since IE6 98/ME and IE6 2K+ actually behave differently!

    But then, I'm also the joker who's using DosBox and it's Java rewrite for cross-platform game development.... So I'm a bit out there in that department...

    The ability to run any software of any age or OS platform at it's full capacity is just plain cool.

    Though that's another advantage of using plain text editors, standalone FTP software and testing in the actual browsers (as well as command line compilers when applicable) -- you end up on a platform or OS where you're favorite pet development software isn't available, you aren't in the least bit slowed down...

  17. #67
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dreamweaver makes coding work easy.It is also very easy to use.

  18. #68
    I Use MODx kenquad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    You would create a couple virtual machines and just have a different copy of IE on each one.
    Oh. I didn't realize you were still talking about virtualization. That solution is a bit resource-hungry for me.

  19. #69
    I Use MODx kenquad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LauraFig View Post
    So would you need a separate VB for each version of a browser (say if I wanted to test on IE6, 7, and 8)? If this is so, can I run more than one VB at a time?
    Before you decide whether to support ie6 at all, you might want to take a look at Microsoft's IE6 Countdown site. Currently it's showing just 2% (yay!) in the USA and little more than that in the rest of the Western Hemisphere. So unless you're building a site designed to be used by clients in China, India, or Saudi Arabia, I would just stick the Microsoft "upgrade your browser" or comparable warning on your pages and try to forget IE6 exists

  20. #70
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I generally use a message telling the user to upgrade the browser these days as well, but still need IE6 in order to test that!

  21. #71
    I Use MODx kenquad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I generally use a message telling the user to upgrade the browser these days as well, but still need IE6 in order to test that!
    I use IETester for basic IE6 and 7 checks, when I need to do them. It usually doesn't crash for at least a couple of minutes

  22. #72
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I find IETester doesn't properly recreate the versions, and as you say, is buggy as hell! Gave up on that one a long time ago.

    This was all set up a couple of years ago as well, when I actually cared about IE6!

  23. #73
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi LauraFig and welcome to the big wide world of hand-made web pages... Now that HTML5 is here (here's the shiv to make IE pay attention: https://code.google.com/p/html5shiv/), we can come out from behind our WYSIWYG editors and fire up Notepad++ or whichever you prefer and code straight into the browser. What a relief. From the pared down !doctype to the specific tags, it makes page layout fun again. And CSS, well there's a whole nother swingin' monkey... I got bit two year ago and I'll never look back... I now understand why 'Code is Poetry' is pasted up all over the web - it truly is! And trust me, I wasn't even a geek ') I was a cabinet-maker for 18 years 'til I broke my back and discovered my inner geek! What fun it is. One day the web will be what what it's supposed to be... fast and light. Sleek if you will. WYSIWYG bogs the code down and pulls the whole thing back into the '90's... And what a bummer they were. CSS is fairly easy to learn, but it'll take you a lifetime to master, which is okay by me, coz I'm having so much fun doing it. I'm going for a ride on my bicycle now. Enjoy ')

  24. #74
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Welcome to our happy little forums, Galen777.

  25. #75
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Thanks, I've been a fan of sitepoint's SitePoint CSS Reference stuff for a while now. Good, clean and clear. The way she suppose to is. One question; is there a Firefox add-on that can make like a text-only browser and just show text the way Readable does (but not overlayed like Readable)? I get tired of paying to see some dumb shmucks bad design all the time... ')


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •