Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Depends on how you define JavaScript (Score 1) 142

by tepples (#49566159) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

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.

Comment: Re:Yes, if you like stupid eye-candy crap. (Score 1) 142

by tepples (#49566051) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

[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.

Comment: Not available for your platform (Score 1) 142

by tepples (#49566035) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

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?

Comment: Sometimes you have to fire some customers (Score 1) 142

by tepples (#49565907) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

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.

Comment: Expand details of part of the document (Score 2) 142

by tepples (#49565879) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

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?

Comment: Re:Of course. (Score 1) 64

by smitty_one_each (#49565681) Attached to: Hillary is still going to be our next president, isn't she?
I love you, man, but, as a sola scritptura fundamentalist, that tradition adds nothing to my infinite admiration for Christ, and knowledge of my utter, sinful failure.
Across the varied tapestry of Christianity, there's an awful lot that has me shrugging.
In defense of Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy, I'll take the hit that the Evangelical "tradition" is drab and has just as many challenges as the "high" churches, albeit different ones.
Not out to offend you. In any case, we've nothing mutual to prove. Our only judge is the Savior.

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 209

by squiggleslash (#49563293) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

Yes, it absolutely does. It ties functionality together in a way which is designed to be difficult to tease apart specifically because of NIH.

That's not a helpful reply. SystemD does not resemble "The Windows way". It's a long time coming fix to something that's been considered creaky and crappy now for about 20 years. It integrates things that shouldn't have been separate in the first place. Is it really the "Unix way" for instance to handle login shell sessions only if they come in via serial ports or the framebuffer/USB keyboard, but not via TCP sockets?

It's tying functionality together because it's the same functionality, and it shouldn't be replicated in three different places, managed by eleven different daemons, with 871 different security models.

Windows way? No. It doesn't resemble Windows even slightly.

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...