You can't use jQuery without knowing ECMAScript, but you can use it without knowing W3C-standard DOM API. This technically means you can use it without knowing JavaScript, so long as you define JavaScript as the sum of ECMAScript and DOM API. I'm assuming that the so-called guru implicitly defines it as such.
Without JavaScript, how would you prefer that Internet-connected interactive applications be deployed to users of PCs that run an operating system different from yours?
If you are developing an app that hyperar believes "should not be on the web", then how should you reach users of Windows without "writ[ing] code for Windows"? In all but the most niche cases, charging $700 for the app and shipping a free Mac mini with it is out of the question.
[Raw JavaScript] is good, it is fast, and there are VERY TINY inconsistencies between browsers, even old IEs, unless it is DOM-crap or stuff relating to inputs and CSS rules. Everything else is FINE.
Except that's exactly why people use jQuery: to ensure that "DOM-crap or stuff relating to inputs" works for all viewers.
Learning Javascript is a ghetto because so many entry-level people, who are ignorant and arrogant as shit, write bad tutorials, give anti-pro tips, and generally don't have any fucking clue what they're doing.
In common use, "JavaScript" refers to both the DOM API or the ECMAScript language that calls it. To which are you referring? If the latter, inside ECMAScript is a beautiful language struggling to get out. JavaScript: The Good Parts exposes this language.
FWIW (for those less experienced devs/engineers), most JS frameworks are bullshit, replicating functionality found in the browser.
Only if you are willing to fire customers who use outdated browsers on unsupported operating system. Some of this functionality isn't in IE before 9.
I'm not advocating reinventing the wheel, I am advocating not using a wheel when you walk next door.
Some people routinely use a wheel to walk next door. Likewise, on the web, it's wise to make your web application accessible to people with disabilities.
CSS, Javascript, and HTML are a clusterfuck compared to native-development and provide a worse experience.
How is "This application is not available for your platform" a better experience?
Business app?, desktop, using web services.
Good luck getting users of anything but a Mac to run an app developed on and for a Mac. Web is more cross-platform than native.
.net works from XP to 8.1, and it'll work on 10
But how well does
Which is why there is only one framework for desktop apps.
Yeah, you don't need a framework to do basic things
The same is true of the web so long as you aren't trying to support ancient IE.
but when your "users" are more properly called "customers" -- or even more important, "potential customers" -- then some web dev's desire to preach the gospel must take a back seat to doing the job the way it needs to be done, rightly or wrongly.
There are customers you want, and customers you ought to fire. Users of Internet Explorer before version 9 are probably using Windows XP, an operating system that cannot run IE 9. This means they're less likely to spend money on replacing a decade-old unsupported system with known security vulnerabilities. This in turn means they're less likely to have disposable income to buy your product. It also means they're less likely to care about the security of the payment information with which they buy your product, which can lead to an increased rate of chargebacks.
Instead of throwing many small fragments at the browser and stealing user cycles to cobble it all together, just serve up the content already.
I have served the document. Now the user has activated a control to expand details of a particular part of the document. How should this click be processed?
Or I have served the document. Now the user has opted into real-time updates of part of the document. How should these updates be served?
According to what menu?
Sounds like a great contract from ESPN's point of view.
They get their product sold to people who don't want it. Those people have no other legal method of getting what they want without also paying for ESPN.
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
[...]
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
You've got this backwards. The consumer has no standing because they never contracted with ESPN. The contract is between ESPN and Verizon. Customers are never paying ESPN. Verizon is paying ESPN. Customers are paying Verizon, but that doesn't give them standing on a contract between ESPN and Verizon. Just like if you bought something from Walmart, that doesn't give you standing to modify Walmart's wages to their employees.
Legally, the proper solution is for Verizon to charge all customers enough so that they can fulfill their contractual obligation to ESPN. If their contract says they need to pay ESPN $10/mo per customer (regardless of whether they view ESPN), then Verizon just needs to pay that and they've satisfied the terms of their contract with ESPN.
If Verizon wants to then turn around and charge ESPN-viewing customers $20/mo to cover their shortfall (assuming half their customers don't want ESPN), then that is between Verizon and their customer, and ESPN has no standing. In fact that's probably what Verizon is going for here - they're trying to collect real data on exactly what percentage of their customers are willing to pay for ESPN and how much, so they can use those figures for negotiations with ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Totally different. Verizon isn't telling you to send a check to ESPN. They're offering you a price for your cable package, and you're agreeing to pay that price. If Verizon decides to use some of the money they received from you to pay ESPN or Vinnie or for hookers and blow, you have no standing. You got the cable package you wanted at a price you agreed to pay.
Those stupidly overbright headlamps that dazzle you could be replaced by ones that dim themselves when they see oncoming traffic.
Wouldn't this do that automatically? The mechanism shouldn't be able to distinguish between light being reflected off a snowflake, and light coming from another car. And will dim its headlight aimed at that location in both cases.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
