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?
If you're Home Depot, no
Low latency integration with the device's camera is a primary business concern when you're trying to let the user visualize how a particular home improvement product will look next to other things in the room.
So any site that uses discus would vanish from my search results.
Did you mean Disqus? So I guess unlike a lot of other users who have complained in comments to this story about Google's, you want a web search engine to correct your spelling.
Those scumbags need to burn in hell
Could you explain why Disqus are more "scumbags" than other comment section hosts? Or could you explain why all comment section hosts are "scumbags"?
As for your jogging comment, you could just use the phone you currently have to listen to music. Or do you always carry around two overlapping devices?
The phone I already have doesn't support music. If I switched to a smartphone, the carrier would refuse to activate it on my present plan, instead putting me on a plan that costs $300 more per year than what I'm currently paying. Even in the GSM ecosystem, where a SIM is mandatory, carriers can and do automatically add a data plan to a voice-only SIM when it is inserted into a smartphone.
I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to release a new full QWERTY keyboard phone.
Did they stop making clip-on Bluetooth keyboards for phones or something? Amazon still appears to have slide-out keyboards in stock for iPhone 6.
if you're just looking for a tablet to browse the Internet and run a couple of simple apps, would you really shell out the extra money buy an iPod?
Because an iPod touch is small enough to put in an armband so you can listen while you jog. Android tablets typically don't run smaller than 7 inches without being designed (and priced) for use with a cellular network. Or should people just buy an entry-level Android phone and use it without a SIM?
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
