Re: [OT] Re: Short forum post on REST API
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:in8c2g$knb$3...@digitalmars.com... Am 03.04.2011 01:31, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: Daniel Gibson wrote: or did you like writing a different version of your websites for each browser? I've never found that to be actually necessary. Worst problems I ever had as a developer were actually Firefox 2... while IE6 and 7 might have needed a few hacks, they could always do the job. Firefox 2 often left me hanging. I hated that piece of junk. Anyway, with IE6 (IE5 is before my time), the worst that I ever needed was a few isolated lines of javascript - which can be abstracted into reusable functions - and a few little bits of CSS, easily done with conditional comments. It's really very little work, more like 10% more than the 100% more implied by different version [..] for each browser. Yeah, it may not be 100% - however I've heard from other people and read on the web that supporting IE6 was really time intensive - more than 10%. But it's just what I heard/read, I haven't got much experience with web development myself. My experience with IE6 (from back in the day) has been much like Adam's. Yea, sometimes something would be a little bit different on the two or three different browsers that were out there, but I never found it to be a real problem. I suspect that most of the big complaints about it were from people who didn't understand the medium enough to know that being pixel-perfect wasn't (isn't) appropriate.
Re: [OT] Re: Short forum post on REST API
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:in889j$knb$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 03.04.2011 00:22, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: Nick Sabalausky: Heh, yup. Because after all, VRML just went over sooo well. Yeah... what's old is new again fits so well to web 2.0. WebGL gets more minus points too since its on shaky technical grounds too. It isn't very 'webby' if you will and may have security implications... but wheee you can make shitty ports of old games to the browser! If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with WebGL, My immeditate reaction is to agree with you on that, because direct experience as both a flash-user and as a flash-developer has given me a strong personal hatred towards Flash. But, if WebGL is driven by in-browser JS (as I *think* it is, not that I've studied it closely), then I dunno, suddenly Flash doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. Heck, at the very least, Flash is already in byte-code when it's distributed, and the JS-as-the-web's-asm idea just gives me a rash. Plus it's cleaner/easier to block flash than to block specific JS features. Etc. [If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with] HTML5-videotag I dunno. The thing that still bugs me about that is we *already* had the object tag, but then ever since YouTube came along everyone just stopped using it, Google outright left it out of Chrome, etc. It was just plain killed off in favor of flash. And now, ages later, they reinvent the object tag and try to convince me it'll finally pull web-A/V out of the flash shackes that *they* had placed web-A/V into in the first place? Even if I did feel that I could trust that claim (a shaky prospect), the fact remains that we *already* had a solution. (I hope google's WebM will win) etc. Oh god yes. I suppose everyone knows I'm, well, not exactly a big Google fan, but the legal ball-and-chain that's welded to H.2[0-9][0-9] (whatever the hell it's called) just leaves it a complete non-option, IMO. I'd sooner use flv and an embedded player - and I've always hated the whole concept of flash video players. However that shouldn't be used in serious (non demo/showcase) websites until proper support is ready in all major browsers. As a web developer you should be glad that IE5/6's days are over and browsers are a more standard-conformant - or did you like writing a different version of your websites for each browser? A friend of mine who does web programming complained about having to work around IE6's anomalies a lot until he could finally stop supporting it, so I'm kind of surprised that you and Nick seem to like these old versions of the IE. I don't really mean to say that I like the old IEs. It's just that: 1. They weren't nearly as bad as the Google/W3C fan brigade would have everyone believe. 2. They did a number of things that put the W3C-sanctioned equivalents to shame. (Things that are rarely acknoledged). 3. The standards are only now just starting to catch up in features, which kinda pulls the wind out of HTML5's sails. HTML5 isn't bad, it's just that it takes credit for things that it, 1. Stole from IE, and then 2. Changed in a non-backwards-comptible way (much like MS is often demonized for doing.)
Re: [OT] Re: Short forum post on REST API
Am 03.04.2011 08:59, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:in889j$knb$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 03.04.2011 00:22, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: Nick Sabalausky: Heh, yup. Because after all, VRML just went over sooo well. Yeah... what's old is new again fits so well to web 2.0. WebGL gets more minus points too since its on shaky technical grounds too. It isn't very 'webby' if you will and may have security implications... but wheee you can make shitty ports of old games to the browser! If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with WebGL, My immeditate reaction is to agree with you on that, because direct experience as both a flash-user and as a flash-developer has given me a strong personal hatred towards Flash. But, if WebGL is driven by in-browser JS (as I *think* it is, not that I've studied it closely), then I dunno, suddenly Flash doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. Heck, at the very least, Flash is already in byte-code when it's distributed, and the JS-as-the-web's-asm idea just gives me a rash. Plus it's cleaner/easier to block flash than to block specific JS features. Etc. But Flash is a notorious security hole, sometimes crashes the browser, ... [If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with] HTML5-videotag I dunno. The thing that still bugs me about that is we *already* had the object tag, The problem was that there were different codecs for videos (windows media, real media, ...) and often websites prompted you to install their codec.. which sometimes distributed malware etc. It's better to have a video tag with a standard codec that is supplied by the browser. but then ever since YouTube came along everyone just stopped using it, Google outright left it out of Chrome, etc. It was just plain killed off in favor of flash. And now, ages later, they reinvent the object tag and try to convince me it'll finally pull web-A/V out of the flash shackes that *they* had placed web-A/V into in the first place? Even if I did feel that I could trust that claim (a shaky prospect), the fact remains that we *already* had a solution. (I hope google's WebM will win) etc. Oh god yes. I suppose everyone knows I'm, well, not exactly a big Google fan, but the legal ball-and-chain that's welded to H.2[0-9][0-9] (whatever the hell it's called) just leaves it a complete non-option, IMO. I'd sooner use flv and an embedded player - and I've always hated the whole concept of flash video players. Flash also supports H.264 and other patented MPEG crap.
Re: [OT] Re: Short forum post on REST API
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:inaa6r$27f3$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 03.04.2011 08:59, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:in889j$knb$1...@digitalmars.com... If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with WebGL, My immeditate reaction is to agree with you on that, because direct experience as both a flash-user and as a flash-developer has given me a strong personal hatred towards Flash. But, if WebGL is driven by in-browser JS (as I *think* it is, not that I've studied it closely), then I dunno, suddenly Flash doesn't sound quite so bad anymore. Heck, at the very least, Flash is already in byte-code when it's distributed, and the JS-as-the-web's-asm idea just gives me a rash. Plus it's cleaner/easier to block flash than to block specific JS features. Etc. But Flash is a notorious security hole, sometimes crashes the browser, ... Yea, like I said, I do hate flash. It's just that pitting it against JS strikes me as the age-old shit sandwich vs giant doucebag debate. (/me tips hat to South Park) [If it helps killing Flash I'm fine with] HTML5-videotag I dunno. The thing that still bugs me about that is we *already* had the object tag, The problem was that there were different codecs for videos (windows media, real media, ...) and often websites prompted you to install their codec.. which sometimes distributed malware etc. It's better to have a video tag with a standard codec that is supplied by the browser. The W3C could just as easily have said use the object tag, use the X codec; any using-a-special-codec feature of the object tag is depricated.
Re: Plot2kill 0.2
@dsimcha: I can't compile your demotest from plot2kill, using gtkD and D2: ..\lib\plot2kill.lib(gtkwrapper) Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D5cairo12ImageSurface12ImageSurface7__ClassZ ..\lib\plot2kill.lib(gtkwrapper) Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D5cairo12ImageSurface12ImageSurface6createFE4gtkc10cairotypes14cairo_format_tiiZC5cairo12ImageSurface12ImageSurface ..\lib\plot2kill.lib(gtkwrapper) Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D5cairo12ImageSurface12__ModuleInfoZ ..\lib\plot2kill.lib(gtkwrapper) Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D4gtkc3all12__ModuleInfoZ --- errorlevel 4 I've built gtkD via the \gtkD\src\build\gtkD.bat script, which uses Bud. The GtkD.lib file does have a bunch of cairo symbols in it. For demotest I'm building with: dmd -version=gtk -version=test -I..\ ..\lib\plot2kill.lib D:\dev\lib\D\gtkD\src\build\GtkD.lib ..\lib\dstats.lib -ID:\dev\lib\D\gtkD\src -ID:\dev\lib\D\dstats demotest.d Includes are fine but some symbols are missing. I've tried gtkD v1.4.1 and from svn. :/ How did you build gtkD exactly?
Re: Plot2kill 0.2
Also I'm on XP32.
Re: Plot2kill 0.2
Sorry, I think these are gtkD-specific issues, not plot2kill. I've had another problem building a cairo example project from gtkD, which I've reported.
