SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    How did we go from HTML to JQUERY, and why?

    This is something I have truly been very curious about. Maybe it shows my age, my rigidity, or both, but I do not understand. It is not that I do not understand what it is for, or how to use it (though it is very cryptic). What I do not understand is the drive to turn what is first and foremost a text transfer mechanism, into something more. The same could be said for javascript and dhtml. Wouldn't it have been a much better idea to develop separate protocols and browsers for uni- and bi-directional transfer?

    I understand that as more businesses wanted to use the web, the desire for online transactions came up. But instead of building something new, all these other things got piled on top of html, and everything turned into a big heaping mess. At least in my opinion. I'm still not convinced of the value of online business though. It's risky, prone to hacking, and more.

    Personally, I never bought a pager when they came out. I never got a mobile phone when they came out. I never got a cellphone when they came out. I do not own an mp3 player, an ipod, or an iphone. I mention this merely as a basis to where I am coming from. If I miss a call, they'll either call back, or they won't. I'll either be there to answer it, or I won't. Either way, I go about my daily life without feeling tied to a stupid phone.

    The more I type, the more it sounds like a rant, and it isn't meant to. I just want to put my questions into perspective.

    So, can anybody explain to me what the big deal is for anything more than simple HTML?

    Seriously, does anybody write desktop applications any more? These were my specialty and I feel like all this modern crap has taken away my ability to earn.

  2. #2
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,607
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Web pages are written in three languages.

    HTML to specify the content (hopefully using semantic tags that help to identify what each piece of the content is).

    CSS to define how the page should look on the particular device being used to view the page. By keeping this separate from the HTML you can define totally different appearances for the same content to suit a variety of different devices.

    JavaScript to define any behaviour you want the page to have. This allows the page to be interactive without the need to contantly load new versions of the page from the web for each change. Not everyone has JavaScript enabled and so web pages need to work without it.

    By taking this layered approach of defining each of the three aspects of a webv page using a different language provides the greatest flexibility. It isn't exactly a new concept either - as far as the web is concerned even the original web browser supported the separation of appearance from content although its version of CSS was totally different from what we have today and could only be supplied by the person who owned the browser and not by the person supplying the page. JavaScript doesn't go back quite so far as it was introduced in Netyscape 2 which was released nearly 20 years ago.

    The big mess of having everything jumbled together was cleaned up when HTML 4 was released in 1997 which made obsolete all the jumbled code where the appearance was defined within the HTML instead of separately. The introduction of the Document Object Model similarly allowed for JavaScript to be made a completely separate component. Properly written web pages will have a link tag in the head of the HTML to attach the CSS and a script tag at the very bottom of the body to attach the JavaScript and will not have any CSS or JavaScript within the HTML itself other than those tags. Unfortunately most of the web has not yet finished transitioning from HTML 3.2 to HTML 4 and is still using a lot of the jumbled coding that has been obsolete since 1997 and which was only necessary after that to support Netscape 4 (which disappeared in about 2005).

    As far as jQuery is concerned - that's just a piece of JavaScript written by John Resig that he made available for others to share. It is no different from any other code library that you can get for most programming languages today that will take care of a lot of the common tasks for you so as to allow you to concentreate on writing the part of the code that is specific to the current application.

    For that matter even desktop applications are being written in JavaScript now as JavaScript is one of the three languages you can use with Adobe Air to produce desktop applications.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  3. #3
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    behaviour
    I think you missed the underlying question, which is behaviour. HTML documents weren't designed to have behaviour. The web itself is stateless. Why go to these lengths to make it behave more like a desktop application with a persistent state, when we could've just used desktop apps to start with?

  4. #4
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,607
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    I think you missed the underlying question, which is behaviour. HTML documents weren't designed to have behaviour. The web itself is stateless. Why go to these lengths to make it behave more like a desktop application with a persistent state, when we could've just used desktop apps to start with?
    I agree that web pages weren't originally designed to have behaviour. That situation only really existed between 1989 and 1996 though. I don't know why it was decided to add behaviour to web pages rather than create a separate protocol for it but since web pages were without behaviour for only 7 years and have had behaviour now for 16 years I don't understand why anyone would bother asking that question now rather than say 15 years ago when it was a relatively new concept. As web pages have had behaviour now for over 2/3 of the time that the web has existed it seems somewhat irrelevant now that it is something that the web didn't have during its first few years of existance when for much of that time the only people who even had access to the web at all worked for universities and other scientific institutions. Very few people using the web today would even be aware that there was a time when web pages didn't have behaviour.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  5. #5
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suppose it is a problem for somebody like me. I began in 1991 and around 1998 or so, I did start complaining. It was easy for me to think in terms of 100% static, or 100% interactive. It was the mixtures that made my mind boggle, become confused as to the purpose of a unit, trace it's flow, and eventually lose the last job I had, back in 2000. I guess some people, me included, just aren't cut out for this generation.

    Needless to say, I don't like the idea of combining purposes into products, like the ipad. Computer, web, phone, music, all in one unit? Nah...

    I prefer the days when the web was used to GET information, email was used to SEND it, and newsgroups were used to SHARE it. Separately, they were so much simpler. I retired in 2010 after a stroke, and I suppose it's just as well. This old coot probably just needs to move along.

    =/

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Jeff Mott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    Wouldn't it have been a much better idea to develop separate protocols and browsers for uni- and bi-directional transfer?
    Probably. When HTTP was designed, they certainly had no idea how it would one day be used. If we dig through history, I suspect we'd find that Microsoft tried to introduce a new protocol. But nonetheless, HTTP thrived. I suspect this happened for two reasons: HTML was easy, and browser software was already widely available.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    What I do not understand is the drive to turn what is first and foremost a text transfer mechanism, into something more.
    It was more of an evolution rather than a conscious choice.

  7. #7
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jeff, I follow you. But I'm still not certain I 'get it'. For examples sake: my kids operate the universal remote here at our house flawlessly, without reading the manuals. To me, it's too complex. I'm always hitting the wrong button, or getting into some stupid on-screen menu that I can't get out of. For me, it is simpler to just walk up to the box and push the 'channel up' button. I understand how things like this evolve, I just don't like it because 9 times out of 10, it leaves me in the dust.

  8. #8
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    16,481
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I guess it's what you're used to.

    My grandmother thought microwave ovens and answering machines where complicated.

    My parents did OK with those, and even remote controls and cell phones, but drew the line at getting a computer.

    I know younger people that can't tell time from a non-digital clock and have never heard of party lines or LPs and wouldn't know what a cassette tape is let alone an 8 track.

    When I was in school, the use of pocket calculators was forbidden and I thought bulky walkie-talkies were neat. Now use of computers is mandatory (any wonder why some cashiers can't do simple math?) and almost everyone has pocket-sized cell phones.

    When I started using computers it was text only, command prompt, monochrome screen (remember pong?). Personally and fortunately, I have no trouble with this, but I can understand how some would and GUIs make things easier (well, they should hopefully) and look cool.

    Would having separate transfer protocols for various things make sense and be better? Probably. But time flies and change is constant. Who know's, maybe 20 years from now there will be?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Heh. I remember everything on that list. Heck, I remember our first black and white tv. It had three knobs. One volume, one gross and one fine channel knob. I could see it and hear it just fine. I'd still use it today if I still had it. =)

  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,381
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, I used to work in at a place where Web Application was frown upon and desktop application is ALWAYS way to go.

    Many people there avoid Javascript like plague and even hate ANY open source as well. If you bring up any of the words like "web/html/javascript/open source", they are already giving the thumb down (like in Gladiator's style)

    In terms of how HTML/CSS/JavaScript got super popular is NOT because of the technology. It was the accessibility/maintainability/security that made it super popular. Desktop application security is NOT even close to web security. Name me any desktop application that can't be cracked? look for any software and you'll see many torrents w/ crack. Now, try to hack amazon.com. Which do you think is easier to hack? How about cloud computing? With Desktop, you're stuck w/ whatever cpu for your computer. With web, you can distribute to multiple cpu on the fly.

    Anyways, don't look at HTML/CSS/JS as a reason why WEB became popular. Look at it as HTML/CSS/JS got popular because of Web.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,381
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Web pages are written in three languages.

    HTML to specify the content (hopefully using semantic tags that help to identify what each piece of the content is).

    CSS to define how the page should look on the particular device being used to view the page. By keeping this separate from the HTML you can define totally different appearances for the same content to suit a variety of different devices.

    JavaScript to define any behaviour you want the page to have. This allows the page to be interactive without the need to contantly load new versions of the page from the web for each change. Not everyone has JavaScript enabled and so web pages need to work without it.

    By taking this layered approach of defining each of the three aspects of a webv page using a different language provides the greatest flexibility. It isn't exactly a new concept either - as far as the web is concerned even the original web browser supported the separation of appearance from content although its version of CSS was totally different from what we have today and could only be supplied by the person who owned the browser and not by the person supplying the page. JavaScript doesn't go back quite so far as it was introduced in Netyscape 2 which was released nearly 20 years ago.

    The big mess of having everything jumbled together was cleaned up when HTML 4 was released in 1997 which made obsolete all the jumbled code where the appearance was defined within the HTML instead of separately. The introduction of the Document Object Model similarly allowed for JavaScript to be made a completely separate component. Properly written web pages will have a link tag in the head of the HTML to attach the CSS and a script tag at the very bottom of the body to attach the JavaScript and will not have any CSS or JavaScript within the HTML itself other than those tags. Unfortunately most of the web has not yet finished transitioning from HTML 3.2 to HTML 4 and is still using a lot of the jumbled coding that has been obsolete since 1997 and which was only necessary after that to support Netscape 4 (which disappeared in about 2005).

    As far as jQuery is concerned - that's just a piece of JavaScript written by John Resig that he made available for others to share. It is no different from any other code library that you can get for most programming languages today that will take care of a lot of the common tasks for you so as to allow you to concentreate on writing the part of the code that is specific to the current application.

    For that matter even desktop applications are being written in JavaScript now as JavaScript is one of the three languages you can use with Adobe Air to produce desktop applications.
    To me that's not how jQuery came into picture. It came because each browser's JavaScript behavior is not compatible with other browser.... So, they created jQuery which promised that all their API is multibrowser compatible. This reduced many headaches and testing effort. To be honest, if JavaScript was standardized from the beginning... there would be less hate on web development world. I'm sure you asked million times "It works on Firefox.. why isn't it working on IE?" or sometimes "Works on my IE but not yours?" Testing is quite a task in the web world. So calling jQuery as "just a piece" is completely wrong.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,381
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One last comment ^_^... It's been months since I posted here.

    In my opinion, I think you're judging by the cover. Web is much more then just HTML/CSS/JavaScript. In fact, that's just maybe 20~30%. There are back-end technology which has greater importance. For example, I want to run 100 computers to be clustered... HTML/CSS/JS won't help at all in this area. So if I come across a person who says "Web is stupid! HTML/CSS/JS sucks" then you clearly do not understand what Web is truly about. What's ironic is that you are using WEB to post your thread.. so think about that.

  13. #13
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,607
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    To me that's not how jQuery came into picture. It came because each browser's JavaScript behavior is not compatible with other browser.... So, they created jQuery which promised that all their API is multibrowser compatible. This reduced many headaches and testing effort. To be honest, if JavaScript was standardized from the beginning... there would be less hate on web development world. I'm sure you asked million times "It works on Firefox.. why isn't it working on IE?" or sometimes "Works on my IE but not yours?" Testing is quite a task in the web world. So calling jQuery as "just a piece" is completely wrong.
    Exactly right. I never said WHY jQuery was created in what you quoted - only that it is simply some JavaScript written by John Resig. It is just a piece of JavaScript and anyone who knows how to write JavaScript properly can easily write their own version of what that code provides.

    You can easily prove that jQuery is simply JavaScript code by turning off JavaScript and then discovering that jQuery will no longer run.

    Just because you don't know enough JavaScript to write your own equivalent of jQuery doesn't mean that jQuery isn't just some JavaScript code to perform certain cross browser tasks that its author decided to share. No matter what level of JavaScript knowledge you have there will likely be code you could write easily yourself and other code you'd have more difficulty with.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  14. #14
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Of course, I realised when I started this thread that it uses the very things I don't see any point in. But I use it because it's the only option right now. Until SP introduces a mailing group, then I have to use this. The truth is, I don't even like this, or facebook, even though I'm forced to use it because nobody checks their f-ing email anymore. I feel like I'm being pulled out with the tide, with all this feature overload and dumb crap.

  15. #15
    <title class="lol"> bronze trophy TehYoyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northeast Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    Until SP introduces a mailing group, then I have to use this.
    I'm a forum guy, myself.
    The truth is, I don't even like this, or facebook, even though I'm forced to use it because nobody checks their f-ing email anymore.
    Same! I absolutely hate that. Terrible for communication. And I'm young (no offense), in the "Facebookiscool" generation.

    ~TehYoyo

  16. #16
    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 Serenarules View Post
    So, can anybody explain to me what the big deal is for anything more than simple HTML?
    Seriously, does anybody write desktop applications any more? These were my specialty and I feel like all this modern crap has taken away my ability to earn.[/QUOTE]

    Wow, someone crankier and more old-fashioned than myself... this will be fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    So, can anybody explain to me what the big deal is for anything more than simple HTML?
    Some of the technologies offer real advantages -- CSS for example allows you to enhance the page and create layouts, often using less bandwidth and less HTML. In fact, it lets you take your HTML back to the original intent; saying what things are and then letting the user agent (browser) determine how best to show them... all CSS does is allow you to target certain types of user agents to further enhance their appearance.

    It's where the idea of "separation of presentation from content" comes into play -- semantic markup; saying what your things ARE (headings, paragraphs, lists) instead of what they look like (font, center, align) allows you to target multiple targets off one set of HTML, and still have a decent workable page for search engines, screen readers with assistive technologies, or people who just want to turn all the fancy extra crap off.

    You go to one of my sites, you turn off CSS, you get a clean, simple flat HTML page that's fully functional. You leave CSS on and turn images off, you get a working CSS layout where all the content is still useful.

    CSS also, as I mentioned, can save on bandwidth and make pages load faster; since an external CSS stylesheet is CACHED across pages. So if people visit more than one page that uses the same styling, when they go to that second page it's already on the clients machine ready to go; it also means less markup overall since you can say something once, instead of a dozen times over and over.

    You take old HTML 3.2 from the peak of "let's piss on what HTML is for" (The following is taken from an actual site I took over running in 2003 the previous maintainer had tossed together using "HotMetal Pro" -- an old WYSIWYG. My involvement ended last year after they stepped on my johnson with golf cleats connected to a car battery -- that's actually how one of the junior partners described their handling of the changeover!)

    Code:
    	</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 14pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Inner Sphere Idenity</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
    	STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
    	<BR>
    	In a region called home by as many different peoples and cultures as the Inner Sphere, it may seem strange to speak
    	of an overall identity, or of any similarities at all. Yet every Inner Sphere nation shares three characteristics
    	that set them apart from the Clans: a workable balance between vastly diverse elements, families in which parents
    	or close blood relatives care for children of varying ages, and recognition of other human endeavors as equal or
    	superior to waging war.<BR>
    	<BR>
    	</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 14pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Clan and Inner Sphere Differences</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
    	STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
    	<BR>
    	Like many groups in the Inner Sphere, individual Clans see themselves as significantly different from their fellows.
    	Though minor from an Inner Sphere perspective, cultural differences among the Clans frequently threaten to explode
    	into major rifts. Throughout Clan history, they have prompted everything from long-standing feuds to mini-civil
    	wars to outright obliteration.<BR>
    	<BR>
    	The realms of the Inner Sphere are far more different from each other than are any two Clans. Some are virtually
    	bubbling over with different cultural groups and political factions. Others hew sharply to a single cultural pattern
    	and centralized power structure. Yet even the most freewheeling society possesses some sense of unified identity,
    	and even the least tolerant realm peacefully incorporates nonconformist elements.<BR>
    	<BR>
    	</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 12pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Falcon vs. Wolf</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
    	STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
    Spends time declaring the same things over and over again, isn't semantic so screen readers have no clue what's going on, and is an all around waste of code... for what today would be a simple:


    Code:
    <h3>Inner Sphere Idenity</h3>
    <p>
    In a region called home by as many different peoples and cultures as the Inner Sphere, it may seem strange to speak of an overall identity, or of any similarities at all. Yet every Inner Sphere nation shares three characteristics that set them apart from the Clans: a workable balance between vastly diverse elements, families in which parents or close blood relatives care for children of varying ages, and recognition of other human endeavors as equal or superior to waging war.
    </p>
    
    <h3>Clan and Inner Sphere Differences</h3>
    <p>
    	Like many groups in the Inner Sphere, individual Clans see themselves as significantly different from their fellows. Though minor from an Inner Sphere perspective, cultural differences among the Clans frequently threaten to explode into major rifts. Throughout Clan history, they have prompted everything from long-standing feuds to mini-civil wars to outright obliteration.
    </p><p>
    	The realms of the Inner Sphere are far more different from each other than are any two Clans. Some are virtually bubbling over with different cultural groups and political factions. Others hew sharply to a single cultural pattern and centralized power structure. Yet even the most freewheeling society possesses some sense of unified identity, and even the least tolerant realm peacefully incorporates nonconformist elements.
    </p>
    
    <h3>Falcon vs. Wolf</h3>
    with this as the CSS:

    Code:
    h3 {
    	font:bold 120%/120% arial,helvetica,sans-serif;
    }
    
    p {
    	margin:0 0 1.2em;
    }
    So you can see the obvious advantages there. It IS a superior way of handling things. When there's a legitimate benefit, don't be afraid of 'new' technologies.

    Especially when said technologies are already over a decade old! (which is the shocking part of people still sleazing out pages in transitional; and why HTML 5 being the 'new transitional' is a step BACKWARDS)

    Javascript is supposed to be there to further enhance and simplify use for the user; unfortunately the majority of people crapping out scripts on their sites are instead using it for goofy animations, dropdown effects, replicating things like TARGET which were deprecated for a reason, or using AJAX to recreate framesets as if that's magically going to be somehow better.

    Scripting used with restraint is a great thing -- the total lack of restraint right now is taking good site concepts and flushing them down the toilet... leading the charge of course is the fat bloated idiotic jquery asshattery - that after three and a half decades of programming I can't believe ANYONE is dumb enough to want to use. (See my opinion of HTML 5).

    jQuery offers NO real world benefits over writing javascript without it; unless your idea of "benefits" is making things bigger, needlessly cryptic, and crapping all over your page with bandwidth wasting animations that do more to get in the users way than it does to help them do anything. Oh sure, you'll hear the lame excuse that it exists to "assist in dealing with cross browser incompatibilities" -- but the part of the code that ACTUALLY does that shouldn't even need to break 5k uncompressed! 95% or more of it's codebase is JUST stupid animated crap, ways to make forms LESS useful or trick nubes into forgetting that all user input is suspect, or in general things that exist more to stroke the designers... ego, than it is about delivering the content of the page to the user in a useful manner. This is why your people who just endlessly copypasta into existing pages quickly break the half a megabyte mark on scripting COMPRESSED... then come to places like this asking "what's wrong with my page", then get their panties in a twist when GOD FORBID you actually tell them!

    To be frank, the majority of websites that have javascript on them right now have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to have it there in terms of delivering a useful experience to the user; from half-assed goofy slide-show crap that shoe-horns you into a fixed width layout, to stupid menu animations that burn accessibility at the stake, to AJAX/DHTML type elements that piss all over the ashes. By the time you take that level of stupidity and add jQuery to it, the best you can hope for is to get the site buried in secret so it's grave isn't defiled.

    Which is NOT to say there aren't useful applications of Javascript, or more specifically scripted applications. Google Maps is a great example.... though that brings us to your question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    Seriously, does anybody write desktop applications any more? These were my specialty and I feel like all this modern crap has taken away my ability to earn.
    Desktop applications aren't going anywhere, but with Windows 8 and the "metro" interface, as well as on mobile HTML and CSS will see more and more use for designing user interfaces for applications...

    This actually isn't anything new; go back to when IE5 came out and Microsoft documented and opened up the API calls to Trident (the rendering engine under IE) for use in making application interfaces... almost a decade before XULRunner was a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye. It was actually a laugh that a number of Antivirus softwares from '97 through to the early part of the last decade actually relied upon IE to render their user interfaces! They used HTML running inside a IE instance as their UI!

    HTML/CSS and even with some javascript assistance for desktop application UI design is an exciting prospect; it opens the door to more people being able to make software. At the same time, the penalties in speed, code size and functionality have to be weighed carefully; and naturally they won't be. For every useful result, there will always be a dozen little crapplets that suck just as bad as VB crapplets of the past 20 years, hypercard stacks masquerading as applications, or the people who had the nerve to try and distribute software written in ROM Basic as business applications.

    I would suggest taking the time to learn these technologies and to try out some of those devices you "don't have or want" so you can actually be qualified to comment on them. I badmouth a lot of this new stuff, but I only do so after trying them and giving them a serious chance... A lesson I had drilled into me from an early age -- If you aren't going to take the time to review them seriously and understand them you have little business opening your yap on the subject!

    Besides, they day you think there's nothing new to learn is the day the rest of the world leaves you behind. The IT field is in constant flux, if you think you can learn to do something one way and then never have to update your skills, you're in the wrong field.

    Though I understand the feeling, I had the same reaction when Borland ditched OWL for the VCL -- the latter being visual programming is something I can't wrap my head around; but I don't go around badmouthing Visual C++ or Delphi -- BECAUSE I can't understand how to use them and as such don't, I'm not qualified to rip into them... It is depressing though that I can hand compile my own 6502, 6809, 1802, Z80 or x86 machine language, but I can't understand visual programming. (Though as i've said for years I'd rather hand compile 8k of machine language than try and debug 50 lines of C code -- it's less cryptic)

    Rejecting things you've tried to use on legitimate functionality grounds is different from rejecting them just because they are new, different, outside your realm of understanding or supplanting your existing skillset. One is making a rational choice, the other is being a whiny little ....

    P.S. Mailing lists? REALLY? I hated them back on Fidonet as being impossible to follow and useless... Compared to a modern forums, even the steaming pile of manure known as vBull is just... wow. What's next? Usenet and IRC? These technologies are dead for a reason.

    -- edit -- though e-mail is a great example of Javascript ruining something useful.... where webmail isn't as useful today as it was a decade ago, to the point all this scripted asshattery sent me back to using mail clients; something I figured was on the way of the dodo five or six years ago.

  17. #17
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,607
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Just as another consideration - there was already a protocol for document sharing before HTTP - it was called gopher. That HTML allowed the styling of the document to be handled by the browser rather than having it embedded in the document was one of the original benefits of HTML. Early browsers had CSS built into the browser itself. It was only much later browsers in the early 90s that dropped that and made it necessary to provide the appearance info some other way that led to the HTML 3.2 monstrosity that most web sites still use.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  18. #18
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,381
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenarules View Post
    Of course, I realised when I started this thread that it uses the very things I don't see any point in. But I use it because it's the only option right now. Until SP introduces a mailing group, then I have to use this. The truth is, I don't even like this, or facebook, even though I'm forced to use it because nobody checks their f-ing email anymore. I feel like I'm being pulled out with the tide, with all this feature overload and dumb crap.
    That's not true at all. You do have a choice. Just don't use the browser ever again and save money by not having ISP. If you do "decide" to use it then I'd be more appreciative. Sorry to say this but your perfect example of a troll. Of course, you're free to have your opinion..but if you're going to say negative things then first quit using it then criticize it. Seriously, you don't like sitepoint and you decide to rant on a site you don't like? seriously..c'mon~~~ he's a troll right?

  19. #19
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    16,481
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Unless I misinterpreted, I didn't hear "I don't like SitePoint" as much as I heard "I'm out of my comfort zone".

    As for all the fancy-smancy stuff, I remember seeing sites with gaudy colors, animated gifs, autoplay mids, blink and scroll.
    And not used in moderation.

    I figure it's the same with this generation. "Ooooh, I can do this". And then go overboard (mis)using the tools at their disposal.

  20. #20
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,381
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittineague View Post
    Unless I misinterpreted, I didn't hear "I don't like SitePoint" as much as I heard "I'm out of my comfort zone".

    As for all the fancy-smancy stuff, I remember seeing sites with gaudy colors, animated gifs, autoplay mids, blink and scroll.
    And not used in moderation.

    I figure it's the same with this generation. "Ooooh, I can do this". And then go overboard (mis)using the tools at their disposal.
    That's true for anything. You'll always find someone who'll misuse the tool. There are many people who still think duck tape or super glue is the solution for everything. I can promise you that dumb programmers will always exist no matter what you do. At work..sometimes I wish I had a shirt that says "I see dumb programmers"..lol~ just j/k~ not everyone is tech saavy..but just a thought.

  21. #21
    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 Mittineague View Post
    Unless I misinterpreted, I didn't hear "I don't like SitePoint" as much as I heard "I'm out of my comfort zone".
    That was my take on it as well -- which is why I tried to address the actual questions; Which I interpreted as "why use anything more than flat HTML" and "what good are these new technologies?"... which are legitimate questions with real answers.

    ... and you guys are all hitting it on the head; ANY technology can be mis-used, over-used and outright abused. MUCH of that can be blamed on a "ooh cool, gee ain't it neat" attitude. The "I'll buy anything if it's shiny and has a Apple logo on it" mentality. What Mittineague pointed out is in many ways what todays stuff is the 2nd or third generation of.

    1st generation: auto-playing midi, gif animations, gaudy colors, comic sans.

    2nd generation: flash for EVERYTHING, from auto-playing music to stupid animated banners to inaccessible menus and bloated flash font replacements.

    3rd generation: Javascript (and by extension jQuery) for EVERYTHING, from auto-playing music to stupid animated banners to inaccessible menus -- then using CSS3 for illegible web font choices.

    Same dance, it's just a different tune. Changing the technology doesn't make the result any less stupid than it was fifteen years ago.

  22. #22
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    That's not true at all. You do have a choice. Just don't use the browser ever again and save money by not having ISP. If you do "decide" to use it then I'd be more appreciative. Sorry to say this but your perfect example of a troll. Of course, you're free to have your opinion..but if you're going to say negative things then first quit using it then criticize it. Seriously, you don't like sitepoint and you decide to rant on a site you don't like? seriously..c'mon~~~ he's a troll right?
    Heh. No, I'm not attempting to troll, and the others are right. I do not dislike sitepoint at all. Rather, as another pointed out, I dislike the forum. Specifically vbulletin, for which I have two licenses myself. And one posted above is right. When I first got into forums years ago, I used discuss. It was odd, but it worked, and it was simple. VBull on the other hand is a pain in the **** to setup, configure and *cough*skin*cough*. Honestly, who care how many posts one has made? Avatars? Really? Yes, I have one, but so what. I got tired of looking at the black space left where others had them. Pressure to use? Of course. I digress...

    I think some of you are still missunderstanding my actual question of why?

    I fully understand the need for css, and support it. But before I address javascript, let's see why somebody might need it at all. If somebody were to want their UI to change dynamically, or communicate with a server asynchronously, that would be a need. But again, my question was why? In this case, why would anybody need this in a website?

    In actuality, I understand even this. The though goes. "Oh we have a decent static website. But, I'd like to get sales that other companies might get first, by offering sales online, where they don't." To continue the thought, "Oh look, we already have a working transfer protocol, so let's just piggy back on that." Bingo, javascript (among other technologies is born).

    The thing I don't fully understand, and was my basic underlying question, was why humans feel the need to conglomerate things? We do it with business, we do it with the internet, we do it in with our console games, our handhelds, everything.

    An old idiom, which I still live by is "do one thing, and do it well". If you don't, you're going to end up with something overly complex and unmaintainable. In addition, you reduce the number of people/councils responsible for, and accountable for, these things. Often times, leadership is so limited that corruption sets in.(Yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist.)

    This is something that's been on my mind a lot recently. I've posed this same question elsewhere, not just here.

    So again, why do we do it?

  23. #23
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    356
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If technology didn't evolve and change, it sure would be boring ..

    Just because something worked well last week doesn't mean it will work well next week. Much of this new web technology is why smartphones are so useful. I love all the new stuff that comes along, I just wish I could keep up with it all. Often I feel a real kinship with Alice and the Red Queen's race (from Alice in Wonderland)
    "Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."

    "A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
    Doug G
    =====
    "If you ain't the lead dog, the view is always the same - Anon

  24. #24
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are many parallels that can be made.

    <hr>

    Why would I need fur coat when a wool one is good enough? Oh wait, why do I need a wool coat when an animal skins or from vegetation is good enough? Oh wait, do I need a coat at all if I stay indoors always?

    The answer is you may not need one at all. That doesn't mean this particular approach is the only vision and a good solution human kind can apply at a large scale. In fact, human kind express its self so divers that clothing style differs even from town street to town street.

    <hr>

    Back to tech. A web page is a document. Well, a document means a text editor. Is it?

    It could be. Again, less is more. But... less with style is even more.

    And we see this everyday. Everyone has a point where it gets his own copy of a particular Office suite. And everyone does the same, always. It starts playing with every font, with every drop down color control, with every shape and produces odd things, odd enough to look at them and say: "man, it's so ugly only its mother could love it", right?

    <hr>

    The same with web sites. Now, if that everyone where to use just text, we all would be unaware of their professional level. Asking for more than text from one helps asses in less words and less lies their true tech level.

    One thing you can see real proof here, on SPF. There are some you'd see strongly and courageously agreeing and disagreeing on all topics, granted that someone else has posted an working solution first, they could ride the coattails on. But the moment they start producing by them self, you can measure their "level" to the micron just by looking at those odd things.

    <hr>

    So, why don't we use just text on web? See above. We don't like to be confused with somebody else: type, style and message of the content we send across the Internet. CSS and Javascript make content and diversity go hand in hand. They allow you to "dress up", put "make up" and add personality and professionality to your content. Often, you can tell a few things by a first look at one person. The same with a web page. It speaks volumes before one even starts reading the first phrase.

    Most importantly, the written message you're trying to send is a tedious one for the user and it's an artificial one. Whereas, speaking in style (colors, shapes) exposing your version for user behavior (what's your concept in user interaction) these can be understood even if the natural language the page is written in, it's not quite to your understanding. It says who you are, what you can do, what you can manage to do, finally, what's your compatibility with the one reading the page. It's transmitting a more natural message.

    Even more, text requires so little it levels up message transmitters across globe. What makes a user decide if you are serious with your message is the concern you have with how *your* things look to him. It's the same as with an office. You could just use plain primitive tables with plain primitive chairs. Or you could take pride in your possibilities and add some better, more comfortable tables and chairs. And then some more: you'd add some personal signatures, paintings, aquariums, a beautiful secretary maybe!

    <hr>

    The answer is: because we can easily can. Here and now. Even from old scribes days, they did more than just put some text on their scrolls. They added all kinds of compelling stuff, hard to accomplish with the limited technology of their times, which required extremely hard work.

    Why would we deny this, given the technology that we have today? Because we don't act like one? Because we don't all focus on just one single vision? Where's the good in that? Even if we still act like a heard, there's a time for every heard to move to greener pastures. Move from those arid text alone plains to a more enticing scenery. For the joy alone, if not for anything else.

  25. #25
    Resident OCD goofball! bronze trophy Serenarules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,911
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Why would I need fur coat when a wool one is good enough? Oh wait, why do I need a wool coat when an animal skins or from vegetation is good enough? Oh wait, do I need a coat at all if I stay indoors always?
    I think you're starting to grasp what I'm asking, but you're going in reverse. For example:
    The move from newspaper to radio was understandable. It meant a drastic reduction in our usage of trees.
    The move from radio to TV was understandable. It meant we could use pictures too, and pictures speak a thousand words (though sometimes incorrectly).
    The move from TV to HDTV was not as understable though. Do I really care if the definition is high enough to see somebody's pores while they announce the news? What was the motivation for wasting all that money on research and development?

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    The answer is: because we can easily can.
    You were making sense up until this. Worst explanation for anything I think I've ever heard. I mean no offense by that. It's just my opinion.


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
  •