What about my freedom to let do what I like and not what the author of some header file or object I linked too?!
You are perfectly free to not use that header file and write your own software. Or do the developer's rights not matter to you if it gets in the way of you making money off their work?
GPL is a plague and why the BSD license is supperior especially for tax payer funded software where corps can not play. If I develop some software that costs money to develop I need to charge for it or I go out of business.
Wait, is it public funded or are you making it to sell it? Because if it's tax-payer funded you are getting paid to write it.
I would assume you are low-balling quite a bit as well. As theory goes 6 hops will get you to anyone on the planet. Continental United States is probably much less than 6 degrees of seperation.
If I were a paranoid man I might consider someone in the NSA knew this and calculated the least number of people necessary to cover every man, woman and child in the US while making the number they're following seem "small" (anyone not connected within the 3 hops is already flagged for being "anti-social"). I'm not actually paranoid though and I figure it's just harmful stupidity.
You're a little late but I got the notification so I'll respond.
and the site still has JavaScript as well.
It's a library, of course it still has Javascript. The point of a library is to extend a language. That's like saying there's no point in using iostream because you're still just using C++.
Trying to research how to use JQuery as a geek off the street is a nightmare.
They have detailed api docs at their website. If you're a developer and can't read api docs then you've got other problems. An in-house version doesn't matter unless it's the in-house version at what ever company you've just started working at. In-house software is very common at software companies; being based on jQuery doesn't make it bad all-of-a-sudden (and if it is bad it's not because of the jQuery).
From reading this discussion and limited personal experience my initial reaction to JQuery (shiny bullshit) was correct
Most Javascript is used for making ui more interactive / rich. That is pretty much its use case in the browser. The majority of people like and want a rich user-experience so wanting the web to be more like your database queries and command line server stuff isn't going to fly. jQuery is a library that adds a lot of functions you would want to do in a browser. It reduces the amount of code to write and the amount of code that needs to be maintained. Anyone who works on a lot of software knows that that is a good thing and worth some drawbacks.
It is a response to mass confusion led by the marketing of other products. I agree it shouldn't be necessary here but read through the comments. People believe that the Galaxy products are built flimsy and poorly because they're made of "plastic".
Except people buy cases for their iPhones that are made out of the same material as the S3/S4. People have come to the misconception that plastic = weak. Then they wrap their expensive iPhones in plastic to stop them from breaking. Good plastics are great materials for products in high stress environments.
29, actually. And although Martin was probably in better shape- Zimmerman wasn't the middle-aged sloth you're making him out to be. He has taken martial arts classes and wasn't terribly heavy for his size. He has, according to a cursory Google search, put on over 100 pounds since the incident. So you probably shouldn't let pictures of him now influence your opinion of his physical prowess. But judging that you added a decade to his age you're probably not interested in facts.
A succinct explanation for people that might be dumb enough to think like that: if all your security can be bypassed remotely with a click of a button then you have no security.
Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Calm down there pal- you might want to get those knee-jerks under control. If, as you say, we have an entire generation ruined that cannot do science we must have not a single person graduating in these fields right? We clearly do not see that though. Lots of people graduate in the sciences. Lots of very intelligent and capable people graduate in the sciences.
"Our youth are stupid and will be the downfall of civilization" has been repeated ad nauseum through-out human history by people that don't really know what they're talking about (It is highly probable you fall into this group). A university student getting in over their head, thinking it's too hard, etc etc and dropping out is not a new occurrence implying that apocalypse. There is nothing wrong with thinking science is 'fun' or enjoyable. A casual interest in something is not a bad thing. A 19/20 year old finding out something isn't as simple as first assumed is not the end of the world.
Again I repeat: we still have people graduating in these fields. So people aren't getting dumber.
Additionally: we have a larger group of people with a casual interest and/or a first hand understanding of complexities and how difficult STEM can be. Or are you of the opinion if someone can't cut it or finds out they don't enjoy it in STEM they should have just been an ignorant hillbilly their whole life instead?
Not necessarily true. You will still have top students and you will still have bottom students. You will get the same type of students at the top now that you did before. The type of people that aren't affected by your "feel good science projects". People like you (or I), I assume. Some people take a much greater enjoyment out of it, and/or, just find it easier than others. Even if most of the people that are interested in it now aren't capable of becoming experts in it for one reason or another they still gain valuable knowledge and at the very least respect for the science. And I will definitely count that as a plus.
It kind of exemplifies the point that good educators are very rare. You have to have vast knowledge of the topic and you must also have a vast knowledge of how people think and great intuition about what a specific person is thinking. Things that very rarely happen on their own and nearly never all together.
Although I will say that it is not very helpful to call any science harder than another. You will only end up in an endless argument of whether physics is the base of math or math is the base of physics and how everything else is just either math or physics.
I've already explained why these libraries are well"enough" implemented and reasonably fast. Supporting multiple and different implementations of JS across multiple browsers has traditionally been a real pain. That is where all the extra crap comes in on these libraries. You can't just keep reiterating a lie. A 5%-10% slowdown is well worth a 50% reduction in development time.
I experimented using the jQuery to do Ajax calls, but the way to do this is... atrocious. Works? Works, but what a cost?
$.get('url', callback);
Too hard for you? More options are available to you with easy to read and well documented labels. I'd much rather read that than a swath of if statements that can be labelled and ordered any way the developer felt like at the time.
And now you are going to say that ajax is slow in jQuery? Maybe I misread that but it really looks like it. 99.9% of the time any ajax request takes is going to be the time the internet spends transferring the data. Not the library wrapping the system calls.
It seems to me the problem isn't everyone else not knowing how to use Javascript. It seems like the problem is you don't know how to use a library effectively. Then you go and believe other people that quote benchmarks to justify your lack of knowledge. Benchmarks like: look how many million times a second more vanilla Javascript can access the body tag than jQuery can. Not exactly a useful benchmark. Libraries are a good thing (notice how every popular language has hundreds-thousands of them?). Trying to justify libraries are always bad in Javascript is only cognitive dissonance. For some reason you have decided jQuery is bad and now you must defend that no matter what lest you admit a mistake.
We don't have any trouble with food. We can import it, or fish for it. Ever notice how most of the major cities are on the coasts? Or adjacent to major waterways?
Wow, don't understand the simplest facts of the world do you? Unless you want to starve your urban residents to death until the community is basically a rural community you cannot feed yourself with local fishing. Your water is either too polluted to eat the fish from or you'll fish it dry in a month.
Ever notice how the majority of your landmass isn't on the coast? Screw that part though, everybody crowd the coast and let the country crumple next hurricane season.
That's okay, the urban areas will just import them from other countries like they already do. Or do you think there is farm equipment manufacturing in Manhattan? Cities don't produce parts for anything. That's also largely a rural thing (factories don't fit in cities, only head office is there).
Easy, we ship the food in from overseas in exchange for things that we produce in urban areas. Or we use the railroads that are more cost effective anyways. Leaving the rural folks to actually pay their own way for the infrastructure that's primarily used by rural folks.
Enjoy your extremely expensive and rotten produce. How will food get from farm to train? Or do you want a train track to every farm? That sounds pretty expensive. How will all the urban folk get to the beach? Their cottages? Or to other urban areas? It seems like you live in your mom's basement so I guess you just don't actually understand the value of infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for infrastructure? Would rather let another country pay it for you? Don't be too surprised when your countries falls to third world status.
(you cannot load only part of then, and the functions are generic)
As mentioned above: often times you can only load what you want. More importantly though- you want the functions to be generic. That is what a library does. Provides common, generic functions so you don't have to keep rewriting them over and over. One point of testing instead of many.
"I use then because is more easy"[sic]
That is absolutely a valid reason to use a library when time and money are concerns (so pretty much always). In fact it is the entire reason libraries exist in any programming language. Nobody cares if a page took 0.01 seconds to load or 0.009 seconds to load. Everybody cares if it takes longer to develop, is undocumented and not properly tested though.
Empires are not kings. Empires do not (or did not) rule something. Therefore, it has to be "reined."
Kings do reign in empires though. I can see where the mistake comes from. They almost certainly mean to say "reined" but you could probably make an argument that "reign" can make "sense". Even if it did work into a fairly awkward sentence.
Yes, the fanatic is the one being reasonable and rational about using libraries. Not the people shouting "Libraries are horrible and people that use them must be stupid". I don't care what library you use. I don't care if you want to write base Javascript. But if your argument boils down to "using libraries is bad and only lazy people use them" you're probably just suffering from a serious case of Not invented here syndrome.
Or do you mean code written using jQuery? Now that's impossible to maintain! (For reasons mentioned earlier and later.) Add to it that jQuery code is mostly written by amateurs who don't know any better (or professionals that don't want to face the simple fact that JavaScript is not C# and they'll need to learn some new concepts). When you see jQuery, you can safely assume that the code is a mess anyway.
Pure bullshit. Ignoring the glaring fallacy of "I've seen amateurs do bad things so jQuery is bad" I will just comment on it being difficult to maintain. Javascript in general is difficult to maintain in a large web application. jQuery makes things easier because it provides a fairly consistent syntax for common things you would likely do in a web application.
Oh, and did you hear? They're dropping support for IE8 and below. Not that it did a great job of supporting those browsers anyway, but it's yet another reason that jQuery has LONG outlived its utility.
Their future branch has cut off support for legacy browsers. This is for people who don't need them and to ease production of new features. They still maintain the 1.x line that fully supports IE8. This is where it is clear you are talking from inexperience and flat out lying to avoid admitting you've been less than truthful. It is very rare you ever see jQuery do something inconsistently between the common browsers. Definitely less than you see vanilla javascript being inconsistent.
The ONLY reason you see jQuery used today is that those same developers never bothered to learn JavaScript. They assume jQuery saves them time and effort (it does not, it costs them time both early and in the long term) because that's what they were told years ago.
Explain how jQuery doesn't save time? It is a framework that provides common functionality that people want from Javascript. So without a framework your options are to re-write that functionality every time you want it or build your own framework. Both of those options will be less maintainable in the long-run and far more bug-prone (being less tested etc). You can't just keep claiming "jQuery bad; reinvent wheel good" with some handwaving about performance and amateurs and blathering on about how much smarter you are for using vanilla Javascript instead.
Fortunately, developers are starting to realize that they've been fooled and are actually starting to learn JavaScript.
Or maybe Javascript has started to become consistent enough and functional enough for specific tasks that people can easily use it for simple tasks now. People that don't have to worry about any kind of legacy support that is.
With any luck, by 2015 we might not have jQuery bogging down the web.
With any luck by 2015 we won't have Javascript bogging down the web. It is a language that is not a good match for what it is used for in this case.
cstdio : C library to perform Input/Output operations
Keyword: library. It is included by default because C would be nearly useless in normal usage without this library.
It does not matter if it is in standard libc or if it is all macros. It is a required library to do anything because without it everyone would have to constantly reinvent the wheel, poorly.
I'm giving up moderation to post this but it has to be said. You keep claiming jQuery is slow and crappy because a few frameworks that exist on top of it are slow. Both jQueryUI and jQueryMobile are designed to completely change (and unify) what the browser controls look like. Of course they are slower than native. I even went to your little site and ran this one : http://jsperf.com/jquery-body-vs-document-body-selector. jQuery came up about 5%-6% slower than native. If you give up a unified, well tested framework and a tenth of the development time for a 5% speedup you are either working on something very special or need to be fired immediately.
jQuery is not a performance killer. If it was you wouldn't see it on nearly every website more complicated than "hi my name is narcc". What it does do, however, is cut development time considerably. Provides a consistent experience across most browsers and gracefully falls back when browsers don't provide native solutions. And provides far more web-specific features that Javascript does not (otherwise people wouldn't use it).
I won't claim that jQuery is faster than every native solution. But it is probably faster than your native solution. And infinitely more maintainable.
Just for fun: Just look at how readable and maintainable that code is. I'd love to try to figure out why a $100000 web-application isn't working in BroswerX 10 months after somebody else wrote it written like that.
Additionally: if you are doing 2+ million operations than yes maybe you might want to devote some time to writing a specialized function. But normally you're only doing less than 50 on a fairly complicated web-app so your benchmarks won't show too much of a difference there.
Just for my own fun. What happens if you go : document.querySelector('.menu > a:last') in IE9?
You mean the continually dropping road toll and continually climbing number of vehicles on the road.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. The only way I can find to interpret it agrees with me. New safety features in cars have made them more safe and not less as you claim.
Nice try with the Dunning-Kruger effect though, but if you read my post I have already bought that one up. It applies more to those who believe they are better drivers relying on machines to do things for them
No it really does not apply to them more. You fit the definition perfectly. You think you are such a good driver and additional aids are a hindrance. By your logic mirrors are also bad because people can rely on them instead of actually checking blind spots. You claim that any additional safety feature or driving aid is bad and not needed because you think you are a perfect and infallible driver. Traction control and ABS braking save lives; no half-rational person would argue otherwise. Your argument about some one "accidentally" turning it off while playing with the radio is moronic. If it was such a big threat you would think you'd actually see things like that happening instead of massive statistical evidence in favour or traction control.
Coddling is the perfect breeding ground for the Dunning-Kruger effect, this shows when people get flat tyre at 60 KPH and crash because of it.
No, it shows that some people aren't paying attention / are bad drivers / some other circumstance. Are you going to claim no one has ever lost control of their vehicle on a flat tire unless they had things like traction control?
if you become dependent on it and do this you are a statistic waiting to happen. I at the very least hope you are a registered organ donor.
Now you think I'm going to die because I like my vehicle to have as many safety features as are reasonable? Does that sound at all rational to you?
No one is less capable because of driving aids. There have always been bad drivers and stupid mistakes. Aids, by definition, make people more capable. Now a non expert can keep control of their vehicle with greater ease. Panicked people don't veer out of control when they don't brake properly. The person with bad spacial feel for their vehicle doesn't back into the car behind them. The distracted person doesn't merge into an occupied lane. These are aids- they will never solve all problems but they do aid reducing them.
Your arrogance really makes you sound like this. Cars have not been driven safely for decades; cars have been driven very unsafely for decades (with the body count to prove it). In fact all these things you say make them unsafe have actually improved their safety stats.
You can't spot all potential hazards and having safety features in a car does not prevent you from practicing defensive driving. You have allowed the fact that you haven't been killed in an auto collision convince you that you are an incredible driver and if everyone drove like you there wouldn't be any accidents. There are a few fallacies in that way of thinking and possibly a few just plain incorrect assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
What about my freedom to let do what I like and not what the author of some header file or object I linked too?!
You are perfectly free to not use that header file and write your own software. Or do the developer's rights not matter to you if it gets in the way of you making money off their work?
GPL is a plague and why the BSD license is supperior especially for tax payer funded software where corps can not play. If I develop some software that costs money to develop I need to charge for it or I go out of business.
Wait, is it public funded or are you making it to sell it? Because if it's tax-payer funded you are getting paid to write it.
I would assume you are low-balling quite a bit as well. As theory goes 6 hops will get you to anyone on the planet. Continental United States is probably much less than 6 degrees of seperation.
If I were a paranoid man I might consider someone in the NSA knew this and calculated the least number of people necessary to cover every man, woman and child in the US while making the number they're following seem "small" (anyone not connected within the 3 hops is already flagged for being "anti-social"). I'm not actually paranoid though and I figure it's just harmful stupidity.
You're a little late but I got the notification so I'll respond.
and the site still has JavaScript as well.
It's a library, of course it still has Javascript. The point of a library is to extend a language. That's like saying there's no point in using iostream because you're still just using C++.
Trying to research how to use JQuery as a geek off the street is a nightmare.
They have detailed api docs at their website. If you're a developer and can't read api docs then you've got other problems. An in-house version doesn't matter unless it's the in-house version at what ever company you've just started working at. In-house software is very common at software companies; being based on jQuery doesn't make it bad all-of-a-sudden (and if it is bad it's not because of the jQuery).
From reading this discussion and limited personal experience my initial reaction to JQuery (shiny bullshit) was correct
Most Javascript is used for making ui more interactive / rich. That is pretty much its use case in the browser. The majority of people like and want a rich user-experience so wanting the web to be more like your database queries and command line server stuff isn't going to fly. jQuery is a library that adds a lot of functions you would want to do in a browser. It reduces the amount of code to write and the amount of code that needs to be maintained. Anyone who works on a lot of software knows that that is a good thing and worth some drawbacks.
It is a response to mass confusion led by the marketing of other products. I agree it shouldn't be necessary here but read through the comments. People believe that the Galaxy products are built flimsy and poorly because they're made of "plastic".
Except people buy cases for their iPhones that are made out of the same material as the S3/S4. People have come to the misconception that plastic = weak. Then they wrap their expensive iPhones in plastic to stop them from breaking. Good plastics are great materials for products in high stress environments.
29, actually. And although Martin was probably in better shape- Zimmerman wasn't the middle-aged sloth you're making him out to be. He has taken martial arts classes and wasn't terribly heavy for his size. He has, according to a cursory Google search, put on over 100 pounds since the incident. So you probably shouldn't let pictures of him now influence your opinion of his physical prowess. But judging that you added a decade to his age you're probably not interested in facts.
Democracy@Home - I actually find the idea quite interesting.
Although now you have to find a way to ensure trust in the raw data...
Troll or just stupid?
A succinct explanation for people that might be dumb enough to think like that: if all your security can be bypassed remotely with a click of a button then you have no security.
Seriously, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Calm down there pal- you might want to get those knee-jerks under control. If, as you say, we have an entire generation ruined that cannot do science we must have not a single person graduating in these fields right? We clearly do not see that though. Lots of people graduate in the sciences. Lots of very intelligent and capable people graduate in the sciences.
"Our youth are stupid and will be the downfall of civilization" has been repeated ad nauseum through-out human history by people that don't really know what they're talking about (It is highly probable you fall into this group). A university student getting in over their head, thinking it's too hard, etc etc and dropping out is not a new occurrence implying that apocalypse. There is nothing wrong with thinking science is 'fun' or enjoyable. A casual interest in something is not a bad thing. A 19/20 year old finding out something isn't as simple as first assumed is not the end of the world.
Again I repeat: we still have people graduating in these fields. So people aren't getting dumber.
Additionally: we have a larger group of people with a casual interest and/or a first hand understanding of complexities and how difficult STEM can be. Or are you of the opinion if someone can't cut it or finds out they don't enjoy it in STEM they should have just been an ignorant hillbilly their whole life instead?
Case in point.
Not necessarily true. You will still have top students and you will still have bottom students. You will get the same type of students at the top now that you did before. The type of people that aren't affected by your "feel good science projects". People like you (or I), I assume. Some people take a much greater enjoyment out of it, and/or, just find it easier than others. Even if most of the people that are interested in it now aren't capable of becoming experts in it for one reason or another they still gain valuable knowledge and at the very least respect for the science. And I will definitely count that as a plus.
It kind of exemplifies the point that good educators are very rare. You have to have vast knowledge of the topic and you must also have a vast knowledge of how people think and great intuition about what a specific person is thinking. Things that very rarely happen on their own and nearly never all together.
I'll present this as evidence: List of unsolved problems in mathematics.
Although I will say that it is not very helpful to call any science harder than another. You will only end up in an endless argument of whether physics is the base of math or math is the base of physics and how everything else is just either math or physics.
I've already explained why these libraries are well"enough" implemented and reasonably fast. Supporting multiple and different implementations of JS across multiple browsers has traditionally been a real pain. That is where all the extra crap comes in on these libraries. You can't just keep reiterating a lie. A 5%-10% slowdown is well worth a 50% reduction in development time.
I experimented using the jQuery to do Ajax calls, but the way to do this is... atrocious. Works? Works, but what a cost?
$.get('url', callback);
Too hard for you? More options are available to you with easy to read and well documented labels. I'd much rather read that than a swath of if statements that can be labelled and ordered any way the developer felt like at the time.
And now you are going to say that ajax is slow in jQuery? Maybe I misread that but it really looks like it. 99.9% of the time any ajax request takes is going to be the time the internet spends transferring the data. Not the library wrapping the system calls.
It seems to me the problem isn't everyone else not knowing how to use Javascript. It seems like the problem is you don't know how to use a library effectively. Then you go and believe other people that quote benchmarks to justify your lack of knowledge. Benchmarks like: look how many million times a second more vanilla Javascript can access the body tag than jQuery can. Not exactly a useful benchmark. Libraries are a good thing (notice how every popular language has hundreds-thousands of them?). Trying to justify libraries are always bad in Javascript is only cognitive dissonance. For some reason you have decided jQuery is bad and now you must defend that no matter what lest you admit a mistake.
We don't have any trouble with food. We can import it, or fish for it. Ever notice how most of the major cities are on the coasts? Or adjacent to major waterways?
Wow, don't understand the simplest facts of the world do you? Unless you want to starve your urban residents to death until the community is basically a rural community you cannot feed yourself with local fishing. Your water is either too polluted to eat the fish from or you'll fish it dry in a month.
Ever notice how the majority of your landmass isn't on the coast? Screw that part though, everybody crowd the coast and let the country crumple next hurricane season.
That's okay, the urban areas will just import them from other countries like they already do. Or do you think there is farm equipment manufacturing in Manhattan? Cities don't produce parts for anything. That's also largely a rural thing (factories don't fit in cities, only head office is there).
Easy, we ship the food in from overseas in exchange for things that we produce in urban areas. Or we use the railroads that are more cost effective anyways. Leaving the rural folks to actually pay their own way for the infrastructure that's primarily used by rural folks.
Enjoy your extremely expensive and rotten produce. How will food get from farm to train? Or do you want a train track to every farm? That sounds pretty expensive. How will all the urban folk get to the beach? Their cottages? Or to other urban areas? It seems like you live in your mom's basement so I guess you just don't actually understand the value of infrastructure.
Don't want to pay for infrastructure? Would rather let another country pay it for you? Don't be too surprised when your countries falls to third world status.
(you cannot load only part of then, and the functions are generic)
As mentioned above: often times you can only load what you want. More importantly though- you want the functions to be generic. That is what a library does. Provides common, generic functions so you don't have to keep rewriting them over and over. One point of testing instead of many.
"I use then because is more easy"[sic]
That is absolutely a valid reason to use a library when time and money are concerns (so pretty much always). In fact it is the entire reason libraries exist in any programming language. Nobody cares if a page took 0.01 seconds to load or 0.009 seconds to load. Everybody cares if it takes longer to develop, is undocumented and not properly tested though.
Empires are not kings. Empires do not (or did not) rule something. Therefore, it has to be "reined."
Kings do reign in empires though. I can see where the mistake comes from. They almost certainly mean to say "reined" but you could probably make an argument that "reign" can make "sense". Even if it did work into a fairly awkward sentence.
Yes, the fanatic is the one being reasonable and rational about using libraries. Not the people shouting "Libraries are horrible and people that use them must be stupid". I don't care what library you use. I don't care if you want to write base Javascript. But if your argument boils down to "using libraries is bad and only lazy people use them" you're probably just suffering from a serious case of Not invented here syndrome.
Or do you mean code written using jQuery? Now that's impossible to maintain! (For reasons mentioned earlier and later.) Add to it that jQuery code is mostly written by amateurs who don't know any better (or professionals that don't want to face the simple fact that JavaScript is not C# and they'll need to learn some new concepts). When you see jQuery, you can safely assume that the code is a mess anyway.
Pure bullshit. Ignoring the glaring fallacy of "I've seen amateurs do bad things so jQuery is bad" I will just comment on it being difficult to maintain. Javascript in general is difficult to maintain in a large web application. jQuery makes things easier because it provides a fairly consistent syntax for common things you would likely do in a web application.
Oh, and did you hear? They're dropping support for IE8 and below. Not that it did a great job of supporting those browsers anyway, but it's yet another reason that jQuery has LONG outlived its utility.
Their future branch has cut off support for legacy browsers. This is for people who don't need them and to ease production of new features. They still maintain the 1.x line that fully supports IE8. This is where it is clear you are talking from inexperience and flat out lying to avoid admitting you've been less than truthful. It is very rare you ever see jQuery do something inconsistently between the common browsers. Definitely less than you see vanilla javascript being inconsistent.
The ONLY reason you see jQuery used today is that those same developers never bothered to learn JavaScript. They assume jQuery saves them time and effort (it does not, it costs them time both early and in the long term) because that's what they were told years ago.
Explain how jQuery doesn't save time? It is a framework that provides common functionality that people want from Javascript. So without a framework your options are to re-write that functionality every time you want it or build your own framework. Both of those options will be less maintainable in the long-run and far more bug-prone (being less tested etc). You can't just keep claiming "jQuery bad; reinvent wheel good" with some handwaving about performance and amateurs and blathering on about how much smarter you are for using vanilla Javascript instead.
Fortunately, developers are starting to realize that they've been fooled and are actually starting to learn JavaScript.
Or maybe Javascript has started to become consistent enough and functional enough for specific tasks that people can easily use it for simple tasks now. People that don't have to worry about any kind of legacy support that is.
With any luck, by 2015 we might not have jQuery bogging down the web.
With any luck by 2015 we won't have Javascript bogging down the web. It is a language that is not a good match for what it is used for in this case.
cstdio : C library to perform Input/Output operations
Keyword: library. It is included by default because C would be nearly useless in normal usage without this library.
It does not matter if it is in standard libc or if it is all macros. It is a required library to do anything because without it everyone would have to constantly reinvent the wheel, poorly.
I'm giving up moderation to post this but it has to be said. You keep claiming jQuery is slow and crappy because a few frameworks that exist on top of it are slow. Both jQueryUI and jQueryMobile are designed to completely change (and unify) what the browser controls look like. Of course they are slower than native. I even went to your little site and ran this one : http://jsperf.com/jquery-body-vs-document-body-selector. jQuery came up about 5%-6% slower than native. If you give up a unified, well tested framework and a tenth of the development time for a 5% speedup you are either working on something very special or need to be fired immediately.
jQuery is not a performance killer. If it was you wouldn't see it on nearly every website more complicated than "hi my name is narcc". What it does do, however, is cut development time considerably. Provides a consistent experience across most browsers and gracefully falls back when browsers don't provide native solutions. And provides far more web-specific features that Javascript does not (otherwise people wouldn't use it).
I won't claim that jQuery is faster than every native solution. But it is probably faster than your native solution. And infinitely more maintainable.
Just for fun: Just look at how readable and maintainable that code is. I'd love to try to figure out why a $100000 web-application isn't working in BroswerX 10 months after somebody else wrote it written like that.
Additionally: if you are doing 2+ million operations than yes maybe you might want to devote some time to writing a specialized function. But normally you're only doing less than 50 on a fairly complicated web-app so your benchmarks won't show too much of a difference there.
Just for my own fun. What happens if you go : document.querySelector('.menu > a:last') in IE9?
You mean the continually dropping road toll and continually climbing number of vehicles on the road.
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. The only way I can find to interpret it agrees with me. New safety features in cars have made them more safe and not less as you claim.
Nice try with the Dunning-Kruger effect though, but if you read my post I have already bought that one up. It applies more to those who believe they are better drivers relying on machines to do things for them
No it really does not apply to them more. You fit the definition perfectly. You think you are such a good driver and additional aids are a hindrance. By your logic mirrors are also bad because people can rely on them instead of actually checking blind spots. You claim that any additional safety feature or driving aid is bad and not needed because you think you are a perfect and infallible driver. Traction control and ABS braking save lives; no half-rational person would argue otherwise. Your argument about some one "accidentally" turning it off while playing with the radio is moronic. If it was such a big threat you would think you'd actually see things like that happening instead of massive statistical evidence in favour or traction control.
Coddling is the perfect breeding ground for the Dunning-Kruger effect, this shows when people get flat tyre at 60 KPH and crash because of it.
No, it shows that some people aren't paying attention / are bad drivers / some other circumstance. Are you going to claim no one has ever lost control of their vehicle on a flat tire unless they had things like traction control?
if you become dependent on it and do this you are a statistic waiting to happen. I at the very least hope you are a registered organ donor.
Now you think I'm going to die because I like my vehicle to have as many safety features as are reasonable? Does that sound at all rational to you?
No one is less capable because of driving aids. There have always been bad drivers and stupid mistakes. Aids, by definition, make people more capable. Now a non expert can keep control of their vehicle with greater ease. Panicked people don't veer out of control when they don't brake properly. The person with bad spacial feel for their vehicle doesn't back into the car behind them. The distracted person doesn't merge into an occupied lane. These are aids- they will never solve all problems but they do aid reducing them.
Your arrogance really makes you sound like this. Cars have not been driven safely for decades; cars have been driven very unsafely for decades (with the body count to prove it). In fact all these things you say make them unsafe have actually improved their safety stats.
You can't spot all potential hazards and having safety features in a car does not prevent you from practicing defensive driving. You have allowed the fact that you haven't been killed in an auto collision convince you that you are an incredible driver and if everyone drove like you there wouldn't be any accidents. There are a few fallacies in that way of thinking and possibly a few just plain incorrect assumptions.