Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:jQuery is for lazy, fat, "developers" (Score 1) 218

by hattig (#49567765) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

1. Don't use the compat version of jQuery then if you don't need to support old browsers. jQuery 2 exists for a reason.

2. Yes, JSONP is a way to transport data between different domains. Don't call domains you don't absolutely trust. JSONP isn't a fault of jQuery, but the browser security model.

3. jQueryUI is a different dependency. Don't use it if you don't want it. It really depends on your application though, if it's presenting a UI, then are you going to implement it all yourself, or pick one of the many UI JS libraries that will be in the same size ballpark. Browser downloads once, browser caches, job done - and these libraries are usually accessed from a CDN, so you probably already have it in your cache.

Comment: Re:meh (Score 1) 218

by hattig (#49567711) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

Err, updating the DOM and making updates to small parts of the page as a result of Ajax calls within a front-end Javascript application is the right way to create modern web apps.

What you are advocating is the full page reload, which is a massive horror for many websites. The only use case for full page reload for trivial content updates these days is to serve another bundle of ads around the next bit of content, and single-article based websites where the content is most of the page (e.g., a news site where you are clicking between stories via category links and indexes of articles).

Seriously, many modern websites are a set of single-page applications (and maybe static pages). The only page reloads should be switching between these applications. [Page resources (JS, images, etc) should ideally be stored in a CDN if you can afford that.].

Comment: Re:You forget memory usage... (Score 1) 218

by hattig (#49567659) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

I think that Javascript devs need to learn more about creating a build process to minify and crush the JS dependencies into a single file, rather than which new framework to use for each new project they start.

If your build process takes your dependencies (from npm, for example) and then concatenates them, and minifies them into a single dependency, that saves bandwidth, http calls, and time. If it can do dead code analysis too, to remove those unused functions, then great.

From reading comments, etc, there seems to be an argument into splitting the Ajax convenience methods of jQuery out from the rest, as lots of developers use the former, but you don't need the other niceties such as the highly abstract and overhead inducing $('thing') notation. Perhaps the jQuery 3 work will go some way to fixing this anyway, as it will be far smaller in the non-compat option.

Comment: Re:Sounds like upper middle class housing developm (Score 1) 540

by hattig (#49519069) Attached to: George Lucas Building Low-Income Housing Next Door To Millionaires

There is always the option that the news outlets have confused final asset value with construction cost.

I.e., the properties will be worth $900k each on average, once built, but the build cost is likely to be a lot lot lower.

This would seem far more reasonable for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments in a low-rise housing block, however high quality the construction is.

And assuming a more reasonable $1000 a month rent, or even $1500 a month, the financials start to make more sense if the building cost is closer to $50m than $200m.

Comment: Re:What makes it so expensive? (Score 1) 56

by hattig (#49334563) Attached to: Stanford Breakthrough Could Make Better Chips Cheaper

Well, they re-use the same wafer 50-100 times, but I presume the additional processing steps add some additional per-re-use cost.

It's still $5 versus $50, but given that wafer processing itself can cost $5000 to $10000 per wafer, the wafer cost is now insignificant - especially if GaAS processing is cheaper in any way than silicon wafer processing.

Comment: Re:Deja vu all over again (Score 3, Interesting) 112

In this case there is no legacy software advantage for x86, and a lot of cost disadvantage. Intel are subsidising their products in the mobile area massively but that can't last forever.

In addition, some manufacturers are doing their own chips now, and will not see any benefit to losing control of design to Intel in this area.

The Atom core is not great either in terms of performance - an A57 core should be more powerful, and Samsung have got their 14nm process working so that advantage for Intel is not as clear-cut as it once was.

Comment: Quite a weak X3 line ... cost determines success (Score 4, Interesting) 112

The X3 line is very weak, and will be competing against $5 to $10 SoCs from MediaTek, AllWinner, etc. This market is very price sensitive, and battery life is also important.

The X5 and X7 look more capable, it will be interesting to see how they compare against the competitor SoCs using A57 cores. The 14nm process will also help with the battery life significantly.

Comment: Re:Simple methodology (Score 1) 347

by hattig (#49145311) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

Simple guide for managers:

Double developer estimates then add some. Indeed, don't use days as a timeunit, just vague (fibonacci) numbers.
If task includes the words "timezones", "character sets" or "dependency on another team" then triple ... no quadruple the estimate.
And then consider unit tests, component tests and regression tests.

Oddly enough some things that a manager might look at and think "oh, that'll take loads of time" due to their lack of experience (for example, service should return JSON instead of XML) actually can turn out to be quite quick (as simple as configuring a different content negotiator / resolver on your project). OTOH the developer will probably have to redo all the component tests as well.

Comment: Re:Are you freaking serious? (Score 1) 83

by hattig (#49086401) Attached to: Building a Procedural Dungeon Generator In C#

I wrote one last week in a single line of BASIC running on a 4MHz Z80 system. Admittedly the level size is only 80x24, and it is more random than procedural (i.e., rooms can be left isolated), but that's the nature of trying to fit that into a single line of code (monster placement and gold placement take up another line).

It takes a few seconds to complete - mainly due to it being interpreted BASIC on a 4MHz Amstrad CPC.

I figure that most "dungeon generating algorithms" are quite unrealistic anyway. If you are going to build a dungeon, you're going to start somewhere, and excavate from there in a fairly compact manner (dwarf fortress/dungeon keeper style), not subdivide a massive open space, or make long tunnels into very isolated rooms (although in mines that could be viable). A realistic dungeon would also probably be quite boring to play.

"Time is money and money can't buy you love and I love your outfit" - T.H.U.N.D.E.R. #1