Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Announces Web Development Learning Initiative
bonch writes "Mozilla has announced Webmaker, a web development initiative aimed at teaching the average user the building blocks of the web. Users can join a 'code party' and learn web development with provided authoring tools, and existing developers can volunteer to run their own events. To kick it off, Mozilla is announcing the Summer Code Party starting June 23."
This give me flashbacks to what the "average user" produced back in the day, armed and dangerous with FrontPage.
Please, for the sake of my retinas, I hope that something better comes out of this.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I love all the new tools out there to help people engage with technology on a deeper level. Going to have to see if we can set up a local event for kids from the nearby school. They have been using Codecademy this year in some of the classes, seems like this might be a nice bridge over the summer and maybe something they can use throughout next year.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I remember the (first) .com bubble ... }, thinking if is a function, and myfunc is... no idea.
- where the taxi driver that drove me to my job, hat a HTML4 book in her car.
- where I had to work with a sinologist, a germanist, and somebody with a 1-month course in "computers".
- where I suggested using templating as it hat cut my work load by 90%, but it was rejected because "functions are a too complicated concept"!!
- where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)
- where there were 8 lines of empty space between each line of HTML, because people converted line breaks in one direction only.
- where indentation was completely ignored, and hence every file required reformatting to become readable
- where nobody could tell the difference between a reserved word and a function, and hence wrote things like if(myfunc ($x,$y)) {
- where people refused to test stuff in anything other than Internet Explorer (5.5 and 6.0 back then). If they tested it at all.
- where copypasta was sometimes the only stuff a whole site was made out of.
- where I hat to fix the spaghetti code, and was called "slow" for it, while everyone else was "fast" because his shit only worked until the next day when I was called to help.
HELL NO!
HTML5 is already enough cancer (compared to XHTML5) for a decade of fuck-up.
Above posts contains free hats. Don't tell Valve! ^^
Why aren't those tools already avaible without registration for those willing to start learning now, and not sign up for some meeting in a month or two date away.
This gives me a weird feeling behind all this.
Do you think they could teach the fucktards over at Google what the Accept-Language header is for?
That way they could stop guessing which language I want to see based on where I happen to be at any particular time.
Kthxbye.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)
I remember a story about a PHP coder who used things like $jep (Finnish for "yeah") extensively for variable names.
Mozillaâ(TM)s Executive Director, Mark Surman speaks of "That maker spirit". We used to have that in the US. Now we have devolved into a consumer society. I wonder if we can recapture that attitude with these new affordable tools, or if the third world will grab the opportunity alone.
...omphaloskepsis often...
- where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)
honest question, I don't use php that much but what's wrong with that expression?
It is redundant.
myfunc() by itself returns True or False. No need for "== True".
But this is not a question of PHP, it's a question of logic, so as a programmer you should have spotted it instantly. I don't think you are the spawn of Satan for not recognizing this but I guess some others on Slashdot might.
When planning summer events for an American audience you need to get word out long before the Memorial Day weekend.
yeah I never use == True/False but I thought it was some stupid error like if(a = b)
Well, " == True" is something some people prefer for clarity, which I can respect, so I assume that he's saying people made actual functions with completely useless abstract names like myfunc. If I saw if (myfunc() == True) I'd be able to parse it but would have no idea what it would mean.
Well, " == True" is (has the property of) something (that is, a way of writing code) some people (which are a subset of developers who love redundancy and tautologies) prefer (give preference) for clarity (explanation of meaning), which I (the person who writes this comment) can respect (find it to be not without reason) , so I (the person who writes this comment) assume (make assumption) that he's (author of grandparent post) saying (that is, writing a comment) people (a previously mentioned subset of coders) made (by which i mean "wrote") actual functions (in abstract sense, not the one he mentions earlier) with completely useless (giving no more readability, maintainability or anything else) abstract (not bound to the functionality) names (identifiers) like myfunc. If I (the person who writes this comment) saw (visually perceived) if (myfunc() == True) I (the person who writes this comment)'d be able to parse (extract syntactic information) it (the aforementioned piece of code) but would have no (zero, zilch, nada) idea what it (the aforementioned piece of code) would mean (what functionality does it have).
Here, expanded for the sake of clarity.
It doesn't add clarity at all, especially when mixed with interchangeable != True and == False instead of (!func()) and != False in other places, probably for completeness. And such code usually doesn't stop at this level of redundancy.
It doesn't add clarity at all, especially when mixed with interchangeable != True and == False instead of (!func()) and != False in other places, probably for completeness. And such code usually doesn't stop at this level of redundancy.
That reminded me - I have sometimes pondered if programs should only have "positive" configuration options, for example "[x] Load tabs before being selected" instead of "[ ] Don't load tabs until selected". Is there some written GUI guidelines as to whether or not use "don't" to negate the statement?