Ah, you're just confused. See, you've come to your conclusions from a set of metaphysical assumptions, which you've confused with "established medical and scientific fact".
That's why you can't actually support your assertions -- they're completely baseless!
If you have any contrary opinion, then you need to provide evidence to support YOUR position.
Again, you're confused. My thoughts and opinions on the larger issue are completely irrelevant, which is why I haven't advanced any position. You seem to think that by pointing out the obvious fact that your post was nothing but baseless speculation was an indictment of your claims or was made in support of the parent's. That's all in your imagination.
The only position I've advanced is that you presented baseless speculation as fact and that what the parent presented was also mere speculation.
I never asked you to "prove a negative". You made several positive claims in your post, after all.
The ideas presented in your post as fact are nothing but pure speculation; absolutely no different from the parents, which you call "batshit crazy". Why is your baseless speculation better than the parents?
A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require
If Slashdot is any indication, most atheists lack that ability as well.
Even your post indicates that you, despite implications to the contrary, have very poor reasoning skills! It's pretty clear that the parent pointing out some very obvious facts that made you uncomfortable, and possibly a little angry. (Look at your first line, how ridiculous does it look to you now?)
Let's be honest here. You just want to feel superior to a majority class. Not only does it make you feel important, it provides you a wonderful excuse for why you're not more famous/successful/whatever: It's those darn religious people keeping superior beings like yourself down! We rationalists should rule over the ignorant masses! Things won't turn out like they did during French Revolution at all! (Those guys weren't true rationalists.)
Being an atheist obviously necessitates no additional qualities, though you irrationally refuse to accept that simple fact. You don't have a special brain, neither are you more rational or more intelligent simply because you're an atheist. Get over it and face reality.
Histories greatest scientists have been predominantly theists, you know. I'll bet you have an impressively twisted explanation to force that fact in to your comforting delusion.
I'm not justifying this "circular" reasoning, just pointing out that it's a core component of "beliefs" for science
Then why make the argument at all? After all, it completely undermines your point!
Why not simply explain that science is necessarily built on a set of assumptions? If you needed to, for your example, you could explain the limits of induction.
This whole thing makes it look like you personally need to justify your acceptance of the principle of the uniformity of nature (though science requires no such justification) even if that means accepting what you presumably know is faulty reasoning. (Why else would you repeat it?)
Assuming that you're perfectly sane, is it that you're just trying to avoid drawing negative attention from the scientifically illiterate "defenders of science"?
Atheism offers shit for consolation on the issue of death. Friends, loved ones, family, parents, children, all of them are just gonna die and turn to dirt. That is a real shit sandwich atheism gives you right there
Atheism gives you no such thing! Though that's what many atheists happen to believe, the simple belief that no gods exist implies nothing about life after death.
Piling on dogmas like that is a sure-fire way to turn atheism in to a religion in its own right.
Yes, computationalism is long dead. Now, can we stop using the term AI? Keeping the term around serves only to further confuse the general public and decision-makers both public and private. I'd go as far as to say that the continued misuse of the term is precisely what has kept the cranks and con artists in business!
This old chestnut? Really? My dad used to peddle this bullshit to me when I was kid, and I didn't buy it then either.
How long has that joke been going over your head?
Gender is not a monolith, and treating it as such leads to discriminatory indictments lobbed carelessly in both directions (I'm looking at you, feminists).
Oh, you're one of those people. Why am I not surprised?
It was a joke, in case you didn't notice. You felt the need to tell me how long you've been doing web development; which I immediately quoted. It's not an uncommon gag. It's particularly funny as you made an obviously absurd statement, to which one would assume that you were new and simply didn't know any better.
Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form.
See how absurd that statement is? It's not even a tiny bit true! Rather than tell you what I presume you already knew, I made a lighthearted joke. Should I not have done that? Should I have just assumed you were a moron and explained in detail why your statement was foolish?
since you have just gone though all my posts replying to them all seperately
I should reply to them as a group? I don't even know what your expectations would be!
What's your objection anyway? You don't think that jQuery Mobile is too slow for real-world use? You really like jQuery and think that its performance problems aren't a big deal? Or is it that you just like jQuery and think everyone should ignore all the problems?
Whatever else you may say you cannot possibly miss that jquery let you do the same thing but with far few characters being typed.
Savign a few seconds worth of typing isn't exactly a good reason to use a library! If the physically typing code is a bottle-neck in your development process, I'd love to know where you hire!
Most users know fuck all, and even if they do they don't pay the bills in web development, the client does.
They know when an app is slow and clunky. That's why you don't use jQuery Mobile. Of course, it looks like you hate users, so I'm not surprised that you're not concerned about their experience. I'll let you work out the ethics.
I have never had any performance issues with the stuff I have been creating
You'd be the first. Well, or you just haven't noticed.
Maybe if you were having Jquery performance issues it was with very old versions or you were not writing decent code?
I do have objective data to support that assertion. Very simple tasks take significantly longer in jQuery vs. vanilla JS. You can find any number of performance tests online, or even test for yourself with a profiler. You do use a profiler, don't you? If not, start using one!
Seriously though, most people love jquery as it means we don't have to do basic animations in flash any more and can do ajax type stuff. Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form.
Surely, you're new to web development.
I have done this sort of stuff in raw JS (I have been a web dev for almost 10 years) and it was just not worth the effort making it cross browser without doing whole page reloads that were slow for the average user.
You were probably just doing it wrong. I dug up an old ajax project of mine from 2006 not long ago and, well, it wasn't pretty. jQuery doesn't offer any real simplicity, once you know what you're doing -- I'd even argue that (vs xhr2) the jQuery equivalent is harder to read.
Really, I haven't found a single case in recent years where jQuery has made development easier. In the few places you can make a legitimate case, you usually can't justify the extra weight and performance penalty.
If you need to do some more massive JavaScript/DOM manipulation and querying then calling getElementByID and the others repeatedly will lead to extremely long code. It will also lead to unmaintainable code if you just put everything in one big code block. To keep your code short and to enable easy reuse, you'll need to encapsulate this code into functions.
You do realize all of that applies when you use jQuery as well, right?
Maybe you don't...
. Once you start making functions whose purpose it is to manipulate the DOM in a similar way across many different browsers, you are better off going with jQuery.
In the context you're trying to support the use of jQuery, it very obviously offers you no benefits what-so-ever. But you know that, right?
Well, I can't blame you for trying to make such a non-argument. It's VERY difficult to defend the use of jQuery. See, what this all boils down to is that you're comfortable with jQuery, not so comfortable with JavaScript, and already know that jQuery has long outlived any utility that it may have had in the past. You don't want to see your favorite "tool" die, so you feel the need to protect it from reality.
jQuery has promised, but never safely delivered cross-browser support. With 2.0, it gave up on that goal entirely. Besides, once you drop support for IE6, there's very little you need to do to maintain cross-browser compatibility. So little, in fact, that using jQuery actually *increases* the amount of work you need to do as you get to deal with cross-browser problems in jQuery and cross-jQuery problems with your plugins!
Recently, I decided it was (long past) time to upgrade so I reviewed our code, upgraded jQuery little by little, fixing things as they broke
For some reason, you mentioned writing reusable functions as a benefit of using jQuery. Using jQuery guarantees that your code will not be reusable. Sure, you can refuse to upgrade and artificially extend the life of your code, but you'll inevitably end up maintaining multiple jQuery versions, eventually loading multiple versions of jQuery on the same page! (If you use a lot of plugins, things will go to hell even faster...)
Think I'm joking? It's such a common problem that jQuery includes features to help you cope with it's instability (see: noConflict). There are a host of tools (like jQuery Quarantine) to help you manage the hell that you created because you swallowed a load of nonsense about a crummy library back in 2006. Er, sorry, read that as "thought you could save some time by using a popular library."
You could wind up essentially rewriting it, but chances are it won't be shorter/more efficient.
That's just absurd. jQuery primarily consists of functions that are common across browsers, wrapped in an incredibly inefficient library. It's primary (and only useful) feature was its selector engine, but that hasn't been an advantage for a very long time now. Once you learn more about JavaScript and the DOM, you'll realize how little jQuery actually offers you.
This is all off-topic. My original point was that jQuery Mobile is best avoided as it's too slow. (No surprise, no one is willing to defend THAT mess!) This turned in to "defend jQuery against the unbelievers!" thread, which I'm rapidly losing interest in.
Once you start having to create elements of the dom tree on the fly JQuery comes into its own in terms of writing less code and hence developers producing quicker results.
Looks like it takes the same amount of code to me. Also, the pure JS version is significantly faster as you can see from any one of several tests online.
Let's not forget about maintenance. The unreadable mess that jQuery forces you to write (to try to compensate for its absurdly poor performance) coupled with the ever-shifting API dramatically increases maintenance costs.
Nobody cares about efficiency any more
Your users care. They care a lot. The host of slow laggy UI's and the associated user complaints are a strong testament to this. The "computers are getting super fast" line has always been the cry of lazy and incompetent developers. Don't fall in to that trap!
Writing super efficient code is just not worth wasting time
That's why you should AVOID jQuery! You get a massive performance boost simply by avoiding it! You waste tons of time and effort already trying to get acceptable performance out of jQuery -- which ultimately leaves you with slower, less readable, and less reliable code in the end.
In short: Cutting out jQuery will ultimately save you development time, improve the overall quality of your code, and significantly improve performance. Why would you even bother with jQuery in the first place?
Smart programmers don't reinvent the wheel just because they can.
Then why are you using jQuery?
For the bulk of real-world jQuery use, you can use getElementById, querySelector, and querySelectorAll. Take a look around the web. It's disturbing.
Moving on, for stuff like animations, smart programmers use lightweight special purpose libraries rather than slow, bulky, buggy general purpose library like jQuery. Even better: When they can, they use CSS instead! Instead of jQuery + some heavy-weight plugin for a dropdown menu, you could do the same thing very quickly with some simple CSS. The result will be faster, lighter, and easier to maintain. (If you don't understand CSS, there are tons of generators online.)
What about Ajax? Again, vanilla JavaSript is the clear winner. A few lines of simple and easy-to-maintain code is all it takes. As a bonus, your code will be infinitely more readable, and won't break when jQuery makes it's regular set of breaking changes.
Aside from the obvious performance benefits you get from dropping jQuery, you also get MUCH more readable code. Nothing is worse than "optimized" jQuery as far as readability is concerned. Under the unlikely assumption that you actually save time during initial development, you'll easily lose it all maintenance.
What about supporing old browsers? Well, jQuery is dropping support for IE6, 7, and 8. Have fun with that.
You'd be crazy to use an inefficient and over-weight library like jQuery anyway. Adding jQuery mobile to that is just asking for trouble.
Let's face it: jQuery has long outlived it's utility. It's not even viable for dealing with old browser compatibility issues on the Desktop.
Just learn JavaScript. Your users will thank you. I'll bet that you'll even ultimately save time and effort as you'll spend less time trying to squeeze acceptable performance out of Resig's cludge -- and less time trying to debug the nasty one-liners you're forced to write to get those tiny improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're just confused. See, you've come to your conclusions from a set of metaphysical assumptions, which you've confused with "established medical and scientific fact".
That's why you can't actually support your assertions -- they're completely baseless!
If you have any contrary opinion, then you need to provide evidence to support YOUR position.
Again, you're confused. My thoughts and opinions on the larger issue are completely irrelevant, which is why I haven't advanced any position. You seem to think that by pointing out the obvious fact that your post was nothing but baseless speculation was an indictment of your claims or was made in support of the parent's. That's all in your imagination.
The only position I've advanced is that you presented baseless speculation as fact and that what the parent presented was also mere speculation.
I haven't made any baseless speculation.
Sure you did. See your earlier post.
Can you name one?
I suppose so, though it would be easier for you to just scroll up a bit.
consciousness is a temporary unstable state.
You can find more above.
I never asked you to "prove a negative". You made several positive claims in your post, after all.
The ideas presented in your post as fact are nothing but pure speculation; absolutely no different from the parents, which you call "batshit crazy". Why is your baseless speculation better than the parents?
Prove it.
Ugh... You really just don't get it.
Misogyny is all the rage in tech, gaming, and rationalist communities. I have no idea why, but I wish they'd tone it down.
Yet RoR is a notoriously poor choice for high-traffic sites.
I think Grishnakh is on to something here...
There really isn't any other reason to get excited about RoR.
I thought that fad was dead?
When did I ever say that being an atheist necessitates additional qualities?
You wrote:
A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require
Which implies that non-religious people do not lack those abilities. But it looks like you got over it, as you contradict that here:
Netwon is arguably on of the smartest men to have ever existed. Newton's religious beliefs do not detract from his brilliance
any opinion I have has to be carefully scrutinized because I understand my brain is not very good at being rational.
I can't argue with that.
A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require
If Slashdot is any indication, most atheists lack that ability as well.
Even your post indicates that you, despite implications to the contrary, have very poor reasoning skills! It's pretty clear that the parent pointing out some very obvious facts that made you uncomfortable, and possibly a little angry. (Look at your first line, how ridiculous does it look to you now?)
Let's be honest here. You just want to feel superior to a majority class. Not only does it make you feel important, it provides you a wonderful excuse for why you're not more famous/successful/whatever: It's those darn religious people keeping superior beings like yourself down! We rationalists should rule over the ignorant masses! Things won't turn out like they did during French Revolution at all! (Those guys weren't true rationalists.)
Being an atheist obviously necessitates no additional qualities, though you irrationally refuse to accept that simple fact. You don't have a special brain, neither are you more rational or more intelligent simply because you're an atheist. Get over it and face reality.
Histories greatest scientists have been predominantly theists, you know. I'll bet you have an impressively twisted explanation to force that fact in to your comforting delusion.
I'm not justifying this "circular" reasoning, just pointing out that it's a core component of "beliefs" for science
Then why make the argument at all? After all, it completely undermines your point!
Why not simply explain that science is necessarily built on a set of assumptions? If you needed to, for your example, you could explain the limits of induction.
This whole thing makes it look like you personally need to justify your acceptance of the principle of the uniformity of nature (though science requires no such justification) even if that means accepting what you presumably know is faulty reasoning. (Why else would you repeat it?)
Assuming that you're perfectly sane, is it that you're just trying to avoid drawing negative attention from the scientifically illiterate "defenders of science"?
Atheism offers shit for consolation on the issue of death. Friends, loved ones, family, parents, children, all of them are just gonna die and turn to dirt. That is a real shit sandwich atheism gives you right there
Atheism gives you no such thing! Though that's what many atheists happen to believe, the simple belief that no gods exist implies nothing about life after death.
Piling on dogmas like that is a sure-fire way to turn atheism in to a religion in its own right.
This belief continues to be born out by an ever-widening body of evidence, but technically it's still just a belief (with an impressive track record).
It looks like you're justifying the uniformity of nature inductively, even though induction depends on the uniformity of nature.
You've clearly read Hume, so you know this already -- and should know better!
Yes, computationalism is long dead. Now, can we stop using the term AI? Keeping the term around serves only to further confuse the general public and decision-makers both public and private. I'd go as far as to say that the continued misuse of the term is precisely what has kept the cranks and con artists in business!
This old chestnut? Really? My dad used to peddle this bullshit to me when I was kid, and I didn't buy it then either.
How long has that joke been going over your head?
Gender is not a monolith, and treating it as such leads to discriminatory indictments lobbed carelessly in both directions (I'm looking at you, feminists).
Oh, you're one of those people. Why am I not surprised?
That's why I keep the bedside clock plugged in to a UPS.
What is alive and well is people who don't understand things so they use an logical fallacy to dismiss it. Yes, I am looking at you.
You should probably look up the term "logical fallacy".
It was a joke, in case you didn't notice. You felt the need to tell me how long you've been doing web development; which I immediately quoted. It's not an uncommon gag. It's particularly funny as you made an obviously absurd statement, to which one would assume that you were new and simply didn't know any better.
Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form.
See how absurd that statement is? It's not even a tiny bit true! Rather than tell you what I presume you already knew, I made a lighthearted joke. Should I not have done that? Should I have just assumed you were a moron and explained in detail why your statement was foolish?
since you have just gone though all my posts replying to them all seperately
I should reply to them as a group? I don't even know what your expectations would be!
What's your objection anyway? You don't think that jQuery Mobile is too slow for real-world use? You really like jQuery and think that its performance problems aren't a big deal? Or is it that you just like jQuery and think everyone should ignore all the problems?
Whatever else you may say you cannot possibly miss that jquery let you do the same thing but with far few characters being typed.
Savign a few seconds worth of typing isn't exactly a good reason to use a library! If the physically typing code is a bottle-neck in your development process, I'd love to know where you hire!
Most users know fuck all, and even if they do they don't pay the bills in web development, the client does.
They know when an app is slow and clunky. That's why you don't use jQuery Mobile. Of course, it looks like you hate users, so I'm not surprised that you're not concerned about their experience. I'll let you work out the ethics.
I have never had any performance issues with the stuff I have been creating
You'd be the first. Well, or you just haven't noticed.
Maybe if you were having Jquery performance issues it was with very old versions or you were not writing decent code?
I do have objective data to support that assertion. Very simple tasks take significantly longer in jQuery vs. vanilla JS. You can find any number of performance tests online, or even test for yourself with a profiler. You do use a profiler, don't you? If not, start using one!
Seriously though, most people love jquery as it means we don't have to do basic animations in flash any more and can do ajax type stuff. Without things like jquery you would be stuck with whole page refreshes just because you wanted to add a row to a form.
Surely, you're new to web development.
I have done this sort of stuff in raw JS (I have been a web dev for almost 10 years) and it was just not worth the effort making it cross browser without doing whole page reloads that were slow for the average user.
You were probably just doing it wrong. I dug up an old ajax project of mine from 2006 not long ago and, well, it wasn't pretty. jQuery doesn't offer any real simplicity, once you know what you're doing -- I'd even argue that (vs xhr2) the jQuery equivalent is harder to read.
Really, I haven't found a single case in recent years where jQuery has made development easier. In the few places you can make a legitimate case, you usually can't justify the extra weight and performance penalty.
If you need to do some more massive JavaScript/DOM manipulation and querying then calling getElementByID and the others repeatedly will lead to extremely long code. It will also lead to unmaintainable code if you just put everything in one big code block. To keep your code short and to enable easy reuse, you'll need to encapsulate this code into functions.
You do realize all of that applies when you use jQuery as well, right?
Maybe you don't...
. Once you start making functions whose purpose it is to manipulate the DOM in a similar way across many different browsers, you are better off going with jQuery.
In the context you're trying to support the use of jQuery, it very obviously offers you no benefits what-so-ever. But you know that, right?
Well, I can't blame you for trying to make such a non-argument. It's VERY difficult to defend the use of jQuery. See, what this all boils down to is that you're comfortable with jQuery, not so comfortable with JavaScript, and already know that jQuery has long outlived any utility that it may have had in the past. You don't want to see your favorite "tool" die, so you feel the need to protect it from reality.
jQuery has promised, but never safely delivered cross-browser support. With 2.0, it gave up on that goal entirely. Besides, once you drop support for IE6, there's very little you need to do to maintain cross-browser compatibility. So little, in fact, that using jQuery actually *increases* the amount of work you need to do as you get to deal with cross-browser problems in jQuery and cross-jQuery problems with your plugins!
Recently, I decided it was (long past) time to upgrade so I reviewed our code, upgraded jQuery little by little, fixing things as they broke
For some reason, you mentioned writing reusable functions as a benefit of using jQuery. Using jQuery guarantees that your code will not be reusable. Sure, you can refuse to upgrade and artificially extend the life of your code, but you'll inevitably end up maintaining multiple jQuery versions, eventually loading multiple versions of jQuery on the same page! (If you use a lot of plugins, things will go to hell even faster...)
Think I'm joking? It's such a common problem that jQuery includes features to help you cope with it's instability (see: noConflict). There are a host of tools (like jQuery Quarantine) to help you manage the hell that you created because you swallowed a load of nonsense about a crummy library back in 2006. Er, sorry, read that as "thought you could save some time by using a popular library."
You could wind up essentially rewriting it, but chances are it won't be shorter/more efficient.
That's just absurd. jQuery primarily consists of functions that are common across browsers, wrapped in an incredibly inefficient library. It's primary (and only useful) feature was its selector engine, but that hasn't been an advantage for a very long time now. Once you learn more about JavaScript and the DOM, you'll realize how little jQuery actually offers you.
This is all off-topic. My original point was that jQuery Mobile is best avoided as it's too slow. (No surprise, no one is willing to defend THAT mess!) This turned in to "defend jQuery against the unbelievers!" thread, which I'm rapidly losing interest in.
Once you start having to create elements of the dom tree on the fly JQuery comes into its own in terms of writing less code and hence developers producing quicker results.
Looks like it takes the same amount of code to me. Also, the pure JS version is significantly faster as you can see from any one of several tests online.
Let's not forget about maintenance. The unreadable mess that jQuery forces you to write (to try to compensate for its absurdly poor performance) coupled with the ever-shifting API dramatically increases maintenance costs.
Nobody cares about efficiency any more
Your users care. They care a lot. The host of slow laggy UI's and the associated user complaints are a strong testament to this. The "computers are getting super fast" line has always been the cry of lazy and incompetent developers. Don't fall in to that trap!
Writing super efficient code is just not worth wasting time
That's why you should AVOID jQuery! You get a massive performance boost simply by avoiding it! You waste tons of time and effort already trying to get acceptable performance out of jQuery -- which ultimately leaves you with slower, less readable, and less reliable code in the end.
In short: Cutting out jQuery will ultimately save you development time, improve the overall quality of your code, and significantly improve performance. Why would you even bother with jQuery in the first place?
Also please tell restaurants that all I want is your hours and menu.
Dear God, yes. Why is that so damn difficult?
Smart programmers don't reinvent the wheel just because they can.
Then why are you using jQuery?
For the bulk of real-world jQuery use, you can use getElementById, querySelector, and querySelectorAll. Take a look around the web. It's disturbing.
Moving on, for stuff like animations, smart programmers use lightweight special purpose libraries rather than slow, bulky, buggy general purpose library like jQuery. Even better: When they can, they use CSS instead! Instead of jQuery + some heavy-weight plugin for a dropdown menu, you could do the same thing very quickly with some simple CSS. The result will be faster, lighter, and easier to maintain. (If you don't understand CSS, there are tons of generators online.)
What about Ajax? Again, vanilla JavaSript is the clear winner. A few lines of simple and easy-to-maintain code is all it takes. As a bonus, your code will be infinitely more readable, and won't break when jQuery makes it's regular set of breaking changes.
Aside from the obvious performance benefits you get from dropping jQuery, you also get MUCH more readable code. Nothing is worse than "optimized" jQuery as far as readability is concerned. Under the unlikely assumption that you actually save time during initial development, you'll easily lose it all maintenance.
What about supporing old browsers? Well, jQuery is dropping support for IE6, 7, and 8. Have fun with that.
No kidding. JQuery Mobile is ridiculously slow.
You'd be crazy to use an inefficient and over-weight library like jQuery anyway. Adding jQuery mobile to that is just asking for trouble.
Let's face it: jQuery has long outlived it's utility. It's not even viable for dealing with old browser compatibility issues on the Desktop.
Just learn JavaScript. Your users will thank you. I'll bet that you'll even ultimately save time and effort as you'll spend less time trying to squeeze acceptable performance out of Resig's cludge -- and less time trying to debug the nasty one-liners you're forced to write to get those tiny improvements.