Re: OT: Scripting on websites [Was: Re: QtD 0.1 is out!]
grauzone wrote: But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you? Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad response. Finally, I figured out, that the cause was some JavaScript code included from Amazon. It showed some applet on the bottom of the archive page, and it didn't even work. All it did was displaying some loading gif animation and eating CPU. When I blocked Amazon, all was fast and responsive again. I had some email discussions with Amazon about the miserable speed of the Amazon cloud widget. The idea of the cloud widget is great, it's supposed to look at the contents of the page and produce links to Amazon products, like books, that are related. So I really wanted this to work. But Amazon tech support insisted that it was not slow, it was merely pining for the fjords (ok, I added that last bit ). I was seeing load times that averaged around 30 seconds. In the face of that, I removed the widget a few weeks ago, after telling tech support I'd add it back in once they fixed the speed problems. If you found a page where it is still active, can you please give me the url?
Re: OT: Scripting on websites [Was: Re: QtD 0.1 is out!]
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:36:54 +0300, Christopher Wright wrote: Ary Borenszweig wrote: Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoo!!! I can -- it looks like about:blank. It is also built entirely in JavaScript. But wait!.. How can it be built entirely in Silvermoon if it is built entirely in JavaScript? o_O
Re: OT: Scripting on websites [Was: Re: QtD 0.1 is out!]
Ary Borenszweig wrote: Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoo!!! I can -- it looks like about:blank.
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
Thank you! Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: > David Ferenczi Wrote: > >> I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd! >> >> Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks! >> >> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: >> >> > It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first >> > implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) >> > which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is >> > probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for >> > how to use signals. >> > > > tutorials are in trunk/examples > http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples
Re: QtD 0.1 is out!
grauzone Wrote: > Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for > D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D? Yes. But it is limited. No information, no dynamic invokation, different type of connections not implemented(but this theoretically is possible to do without moc)
Re: OT: Scripting on websites [Was: Re: QtD 0.1 is out!]
Nick Sabalausky escribió: "Daniel Keep" wrote in message news:gmg4av$dq...@digitalmars.com... Ary Borenszweig wrote: lol :) Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree, but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like dsource) is slow for me. The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional alternative, they give you none. It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs. You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link is stupid. Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do that. They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere. The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn. Such spanners were never built. But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you? Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in browsers, it's not the language itself. It's how it's used. It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience. I think I enumerated all the big ones previously. Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help. They come over, and are really helpful. But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs. Then go back to being helpful. Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is. Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled. Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash... Oh great, now you've gotten ME started on Flash... ;) There are a LOT of people (myself included), that will immediately leave a site, never to return, the moment they see that FlashBlocker box taking up 99% of the page. I can sum up all my feelings about Flash (and many, but not all, uses of JS) pretty simply: They are the 2000's version of animating GIFs and blink tags, except it's worse simply because most people don't seem to have actually learned anything from the history of animating GIFs and blink tags. Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains. Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP. Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm)) Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoo!!!
