Slashdot Mirror

> Anything else is generally crap that doesn't benefit the surfer

Not always --there are valid use cases:

* Notch prototyped Minecraft procedural textures
* Us graphic geeks using WebGL "hang out" on shadertoy (Warning: Space Audio)

As long the default is opt-out and we need to whitelist our favorite sites, while being a minor inconvenience, that is the right way to do it.

I don't get it.. serviscope_minor took time out of his/her day to explain this to you not once, but twice already, and still you insist on repeating your obviously erroneous claim.

I threw together a jsfiddle to demonstrate what is meant by "tabs for indentation, spaces for alignment". Please don't judge it to harshly.

https://jsfiddle.net/5ncvn52h/...

The code serves no other purpose than to get the point across, namely that we are all geeks who should be better than to argue from emotion and habit when there is an answer which is objectively better.

That doesn't work. There is no API to simply render HTML elements to a canvas. Some browsers support encapsulating HTML code in SVG and rendering that to a canvas, but if you do that you'll find out your :visited declaration is rightfully ignored.

Try inserting the following data URI into Safari's address bar for a simple HTML editor:

data:text/html,<textarea id='code' ></textarea><button onclick="document.body.innerHTML = document.getElementById('code').value;">Update</button>

If that works, Safari does support user-entered Javascript.

Or, you could just use pages like jsfiddle. The above does not require even an internet connection, though.

Here's a syllabus I came up with: http://jsfiddle.net/clayshanno...

Firefox and IE are basically the only good browsers still, I'm so sick of bugs like this on really important features.
https://code.google.com/p/chro...
http://jsfiddle.net/7C7ey/

Try this https://code.google.com/p/chro... in Chrome, Firefox, and IE. Notice now the large version of the same gradient looks like crap in only Chrome, but the rest all render it just fine.

Another oddity of this same bug in Chrome is this, which just defines all logic: http://jsfiddle.net/7C7ey/
Compare that in Chrome to Firefox and IE. You can't even come up with a reason to explain how bad it looks in Chrome, it just boggles the mind what could possible be causing that.

Oops! My bad. The converter is fixed now . Had to use javascript's getUTCFullYear instead of getFullYear. It apparently makes a difference when months and days are at their origin like your 2014-01-01 0:0:0 example. Thanks for reporting the bug! Here's a jsfiddle to demonstrate the difference.

Lunas: Yeah, that might be a good idea. However, I think naming them 'Lunas' might give people the impression that this is a lunar calendar, and that would be bad because it definitely doesn't accurately tract the cycles of the moon in any way shape or form. The calendar currently only uses the term Luna in the datemod section in order to define L = 28 days because M = 60 seconds. Hmmm... Good thought though.

Choice of year schronization:
seasons: I've heard people say that the equinox is a more stable constant so it definitely has that going for it. The solstice was chosen because it is the darkest point (but only in the northern hemisphere). The new moon is at the darkest point and so is the day. I'm not completely convinced that the terran computational calendar should break with that standard, but maybe, the equinox would definitely be a more neutral location. But if we are staying on the side of neutrality then which equinox?
january 1: If you're going to create a whole new calendar, I feel like keeping with a January 1st start date would be very confusing because you might expect the date to be a UTC date when it's totally not at all the same. But there'd be lots of confusion in ANY case. I know that TAI/UTC/UNIX uses January 1st, but besides that, do you know of any good reason to use January 1st as a start date other than convention?

Thanks again.

Here is a flashless version of the video made with jsfiddle and a html5 demo.
Why does beta not fix flash?

Here is a link to a html5 (flashless) version, using a demo from Ooyala.
Beta could support html5 video, but it does not. Why?

If you are looking for awesome live CSS fidding (heh), then let me introduce you to this site .

Pure Awesome! Loadable, saveable, shareable. Even loads common JS libraries for you. I've even seen ExtJS examples on this site. Hope you find it useful.

Just great. There were only 82.7739742361111 days left, and now I'll have to update my XP End of Life Bookmarklette.

To elaborate, just with "official" tools you have:

On Windows you have PowerShell installed by default since Win7 and JScript/VBScript since Win98. With .NET framework you also get C# and VB.Net compilers. As free downloads, you have C/C++ compiler as a part of Windows SDK and all of above in Visual Studio Express.

On Linux, in all main stream distros you get at least one of Perl/Python, often - GCC and sometimes Ruby, not to mention Bash and Awk. Repositories have a ton of other compilers and libraries with bindings available on your fingertips.

And even though I'm not familiar with OSX, I do know that Xcode is just a download away.

And then you have browsers, with things like http://jsfiddle.net/ , http://ideone.com/ , http://repl.it/ or http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/editor/

And then you have all the other languages and IDEs, free and proprietary all over the web...

If anything, we have overabundance of languages, but lack of interest due to all the content to consume chipping away the need to create.

Perhaps something like this: http://jsfiddle.net/mwvdlee/77mFD/
Technically this wouldn't be difficult, the problem would be coming up with a small set of rules that significantly differentiate between the licenses.
Licenses like modified-BSD, some of the CC's, MIT, Apache, ZLib/LibPNG and many others are VERY similar in what they permit and require.

There are things like this that Mozilla browsers can do since version 6.0 that other browsers have yet implement

Well this might - be really I'm not sure I _want_ this to work. http://jsfiddle.net/Danack/3pFUS/6/

It workedforabit and then stopped (opera) - another win for opera I think.

Well this might - be really I'm not sure I _want_ this to work. http://jsfiddle.net/Danack/3pFUS/6/

Fiddle is here http://jsfiddle.net/Danack/3pFUS/

@-webkit-keyframes blink {
                from { opacity: 1.0; }
                to { opacity: 0.0; }
                0% { opacity: 1.0; }
                50% { opacity: 0.0; }
                100% { opacity: 1.0; }
        } .blink {
        -webkit-animation-name: blink;
        -webkit-animation-iteration-count: infinite;
        -webkit-animation-timing-function: steps(1);
        -webkit-animation-duration: 1s;
        }

If you want namespaces, then why not use them? There's no need to make names collide.
If you like Java-style OOP, you can do it with functions: http://jsfiddle.net/EWvMW/1/
You can also work with closures to protect your scope, or modify protoypes to add functions to objects.
You can even assign anonymous objects to variables to keep that entire scope within a single variable.

Want extensions? Assign your entire library to a single variable like jQuery does.

I don't see why people think JS is so incapable of namespaces. If I missed something, could someone enlighten me?

The closest thing I use to a "website design tool" these days is jsfiddle. Hand-coding but with a tight loop between editing something and seeing how it looks.

I take your question to mean that you want to program but aren't allowed to add anything to your work machine, including binary files that don't require an installer to run. That's typically how I've seen that sort of rule interpreted.

You mentioned an interest in HTML/CSS and presumably javascript.

You might enjoy JSFiddle

If you would like to try other languages or other approaches, there are online IDEs for that too:

ShiftEdit - Online IDE | ShiftEdit
ECCO -Web-based IDE
Cloud IDE
WIODE
CodeRun
Cloud9 IDE
http://www.codeanywhere.net

And some more lists and reviews:
http://speckyboy.com/2010/07/25/the-most-powerful-and-feature-rich-web-based-code-editors-ides/

Another option would be to look at some of the free shell account vendors online, but you seemed mostly interested in GUI IDEs so that might not be your thing.

If you want a fun, short read about why you might want to reconsider the command line, check out In the Beginning Was the Command Line by Neal Stephenson

http://jsfiddle.net/

then head over to jquery.com

Write the WinMain (though it is real ugly), then initialize OpenGL for him

You can do the same with Javascript.

http://glsl.heroku.com/
http://games.greggman.com/game/html5-bytebeat/
http://jsfiddle.net/

Surely there are more such thingies, which make it *very* easy to get something moving on the screen. Why bother with anything less, especially with what you proposed, unless you absolutely fucking hate the kid? Not saying you don't have a point -- I started to learn programming by modifying existing stuff, NOT by learning it from scratch. But I totally disagree that Javascript and HTML have to be lame. That's just a clueless statement.