In bare javascript I'd have to write a loop, either recursively or iteratively
(Oh, no! Not a loop! The horror! Someone might be able to read and understand your code -- then they won't recognize your genius. It's always best to make sure your code looks as much like obfuscated perl as you can manage. jquery is great for that!)
So... how is the jquery version superior in any way to the plain vanilla javascript version?
var myStuff = document.getElementById("myForm").getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i=0;i<myStuff.length;i++) { myStuff[i].doSomething(); }
In vanilla version is much easier to read and understand, easier to write, and doesn't require a gigantic library.
What's REALLY funny, however, is that the vanilla version actually requires you to know less about JS than the jquery version!
Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to use that poorly-written pile of garbage.
. If you're really dedicated to luring programmers away from jQuery, I suggest you write (or recommend) a reference such as I suggested.
If you're really dedicated to promoting that useless abomination, I suggest you find some way to justify its use. As for a reference, you might start with JavaScript: The Good Parts. It won't take long before you find out how much time and effort you've wasted learning and using that bloated corpse.
Wow, that's lazy. So I guess you didn't have anything specifically in mind then?
Let's start with the biggest one: selectors. Hey, that was the whole reason jquery was written, right?.querySelector and.querySelectorAll work in all major browsers and has had broad support for years.
The most common case I see jquery abused is selecting elements by class name. Of course, most of the time it's used instead of a more appropriate solution, still, it's a popular use..getElementsByClassName() has been around, again, for ages. For older versions of IE there is the ever popular "Ultimate GetElementsByClassName" function.
Now, in place of these well-supported (yet surprisingly little-known) functions jquery gives you a bit of illegible code:
Say you want all the elements with a particular tag contained inside another dom element.
The javascript way, works cross-browser:
var mystuff = document.getElementById("myform").getElementsByTagName("input");
The jquery way, requires useless bloated library:
var mystuff = $.makeArray($("#myid input"));// because $("myid input"); won't give you an array.
The difference? One is obvious and readable. The other looks like Larry Wall's used TP and requires a bloated poorly-designed library
JavaScript is painless if you know what to avoid, and interacting with the DOM is ridiculously simple. It takes less time to learn how to use JS and work with the DOM that it does to learn how to use the pile of crap that is JQuery!
Sure, years ago it was a little handy for extremely lazy people dealing with inconsistencies across browsers, but that hasn't been a major problem for a while now. Even then, it was saner just to find a cross-browser solution to whatever problem you were having with IE than to include a gigantic library.
How many times have you seen JQuery included when all the developer needed was a single function, or to perform some task that is ridiculously simple just because all they knew how to use was that absurd library?
JQuery adds both bloat and complexity while simplifying virtually no task. That monstrosity needs to die, and die quickly.
Just learn how to use JS, it's not difficult. Hell, it's easier than learning how to use JQuery!
It will always be about the form factor and the input methods.
Indeed. That's what's at question. What applications do tablets "excel" at? The parent seemed to think there were a huge number of use-cases which tablets are superior to older alternatives. I don't know of any. ebooks are interesting, sure, but it's a stretch to say they truly 'excel' -- to the contrary, I find them much weaker for reading than older alternatives. Even though they have some advantages there, they bring with them significant draw-backs.
Better than a stack of books? In some ways, not so in others. I'd offer than a reader with an eink display is better than a tablet for reading and note that ebooks have only one advantage over physical books: size and weight.
If I have to have an ebook, a reader with an eink display is definitely better than a tablet in almost every case. Exceptions include reading crumby scanned PDFs (you'll need to do a lot of scrolling) and reading in the dark (if you don't mind staring at a light bulb). Overall, it's not as good for reading PDFs as a desktop/laptop -- extreme portability being the only advantage. That kind of narrows it to reading PDFs of scanned pages while on the go in the dark.:)
A good effort, and it is indeed a common tablet use-case. Still, I don't think this is what the parent had in mind when he wrote "HUGE amount of use-cases tablets excel at." What I'm looking for is something that current tablets really excel at, a task that they're just the best tool for completing.
Just an example. I find that my phone and tablet (using the phone as a presentation remote over Bridge) are better for giving presentations than a laptop. However, I would not claim that that paring 'excels' at the task. It's slightly more convenient than a laptop, and about on-par with a laptop and presentation remote. It's just a task that the pair does as well as the older alternative.
Imagine, if you will, a Morse code key input device. With a bit of creativity, you can find a way to use it as a full replacement for your keyboard.
As far as typing goes, you could get pretty fast. The record for 'sending' is something like 75wpm. That's a little faster than the average typist, right? That must mean that Morse code keys are a great replacement for a standard keyboard. Why, they can be made small and portable, even simulated on a touchscreen!
That you can use it to replace your keyboard does not mean that it's as good, reasonable, or even suitable for the same kinds of applications that are already well-served (and better served) by your keyboard. We don't have T9 replacement keyboards for our desktop computers for a reason.
So, yes, that a method for inputting complex equations on a crumby capacitive touch-screen is not outside the realm of possibility, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't be as painful and slow as typing on a touchscreen.
and ignore the HUGE amount of use-cases tablets excel at.
I still haven't found any application to which current tablets are better suited than pre-tablet alternatives.
I'm in no way ignoring the supposed "HUGE" number of use-cases to which tablets are the current better suited than alternatives, I just don't know what they are!
What it didn't have was a native email client pre-installed. A quick trip to AppWorld and early adopters had an email client.
You also forget how accessing email, etc. through Bridge was incredibly useful to businesses. You know, the people who were still trying to figure out how to manage and deploy tablets in the enterprise. With RIM, it was a solved problem. Drop a stack of PlayBooks off at a department and leverage your existing smartphone infrastructure.
No additional management was necessary. A lost tablet was no big deal as all the data stayed on the already-managed phone, gone from the tablet the instant it was out of bluetooth range. Users could easily share tablets, just pair the tablet with the new user (it takes seconds) and they've got all their files, email, contacts, etc. instantly on the tablet with the old users stuff gone without so much as a thought. Again, RIM was the only company that had the enterprise in mind and provided fantastic solutions to meet the needs of early business adopters.
The tech-press bashed them, sure, because they didn't take 10-seconds to think about it. Funny how they bashed RIM for "missing" email (which was always there) when they gave the iPhone a complete pass even though it was severely lacking in features including the ability to install apps, which you'd think would be essential to any so-called "smartphone". Why you think it's important to parrot their nonsense is beyond me.
So, no, it did not in any conceivable way limit the tablet to existing BB users only. Want email? Download an app. Ta-da! Problem solved.
We bash them for being retards. We bash them for saying things like this " you will never see a Blackberry with a camera".
Big outdated yawn.
Look at their new products. The RIM you're bashing is long gone.
As for the Camera issue, indeed, at the time it made absolutely no sense for RIM to offer a phone with a camera as the bulk of their customers were not allowed to have a phone with a camera at their place of work!
That was how many years ago? 7 or 8 years? They've had camera phones since at least 2006.
Why not bash Apple for the Newton or the "toaster" they came out with? How about for releasing a "smart" phone without the ability to install apps, MMS, or copy/paste?
Get with the times!
There is FAR more to a modern pocket computer then a good physical keyboard and secure email.
Indeed. RIMs products offer MUCH more that that, and have for *years*. Try to keep up. It's not difficult.
So... what do you disagree with? I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your preconceptions. Maybe you should learn something about the topic before you discuss it?
LOL! Someone hasn't used their current handsets or seen their new OS in action.
What's in like in 2010?
What does RIM offer above the others? Security, best-in-class remote management, and Balance (seemless work/home separation on the handset no one else does this.)
RIM isn't insolvent or even close to closing up shop. Their user-base is still growing, ffs! They reported their first loss in q1, though that was from the inventory write-down. They've scaled back staff (most likely those supporting their old OS) which is rumored to save them ~$1B annually.
In contrast, Sony posted their 5th straight quarterly loss yet no one is claiming "Sony is dying" -- Slashdotters were crying "RIM is dead" back when they were still the #1 selling smartphones on the market!
This particular meme has little merit. I'm sure it's fun for some, though I don't understand why.
TNG could have been okay had they picked a captain that wasn't Scott Bakula. He has all the range of the kid picked to play a rock in the 3rd grade class play.
Sure, his one style worked well playing a reluctant hero just out to do the right thing in Quantum Leap, but it did not make for a good "leader of leaders" blazing a trail in the final frontier. (The writers didn't help, for sure. It's like they were writing for Bakula. Worst. Captain. Ever.)
The sexy (you can tell because her lips looked like balloons) emotion-loving Vulcan didn't help either.
I never made it through the first season. It just sucked too hard. I remember saying "Archer, fuck, you're investing way too much time in this guys birthday. Go do captain stuff!"
Really? I've seen zillions of higher-spec'd tablets at much lower prices.
Of course, this is just a waste of my time. Apple usually has one spec that is higher than other competing products which quickly becomes "the spec" to beat -- failing that, all the Apple fans just claim "specs don't matter".
Compare the "New iPad "to a year-old tablet like the PlayBook and you'll find they're very much on-par as far as specs go, with RIM's tablet even ahead in a few areas. You'll find plenty of Android tablets that out-spec the iPad at every generation.
I know, "hurr-durr the display!" That's their current "advantage" on tablets. Of course, it won't last long. The high-resolution display on the iPhone has long been surpassed (even the test unit RIM gave developers has a higher PPI), the same will happen with tablets. The difference, of course, is that developers on other platforms write apps that can handle different resolutions, so they're not trapped like apple into always-doubling the resolution. They've painted themselves in to a corner here. After other manufactures pass them up, they'll be back to having one of the lowest resolutions on the market with little hope of jumping ahead again as we're quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Sorry, the iPad isn't economy in any way. If you care about specs, a high-end Android tablet is the only way to go. (For the record, I dislike Android. Still, I can't deny the facts.)
Their user base has been growing year after year. Sorry, it seems that contrary to your assertion, *more* people are buying their devices than ever.
What's more likely is that RIM is dropping the CA manufacturing facility because it's more expensive than other facilities. They had a period of exponential growth, and have been 'trimming the fat' from that expansion.
If you were independently wealthy and had a VGA card sure, but only in mode 0x13 (320 x 200).
If you wanted something ridiculously awesome like 640x480x256 (remember when that was the most astonishing thing you'd ever seen?), you needed SVGA. Even then, you wouldn't have still been running Windows 1.0 by the time you could buy the card. IIRC, you need Windows 3.1 for that anyway.
The home button is unnecessary when you have a well-designed touch-only UI. Apple has only made things worse by stuffing extra functions in to the home button that would be better served by additional keys. Right now, the ugly thing takes you home, switches between applications, launches voice control, launches Siri, launches spotlight, launches iPod controls, (did I miss any? probably!) depending on when and how you press it.
Take a look at WebOS or, even better, the UI on the PlayBook to see a touch-only UI done correctly. They both have a simple suite of gestures that are obvious and quickly become automatic. BB10 takes things even further with 'flow' -- no buttons need apply.
Don't get me wrong, I think buttons are great. Stuffing tons of functions in to a single button is not -- it's just bad design. A few programmable convenience keys and/or a set of well-defined dedicated keys (see: Android) can be very useful.
Apple's home button is an albatross their designers are probably desperate to eliminate. It's not the future, it's an anachronism.
Back on topic: I think a bezel gesture like a bottom-in swipe or corner-in swipe would work much better for launching a windows-esque start menu / metro-style home screen than a physical button.
Slashdot Mirror
$("#myid input").each(function(){$(this).doSomething();});
In bare javascript I'd have to write a loop, either recursively or iteratively
(Oh, no! Not a loop! The horror! Someone might be able to read and understand your code -- then they won't recognize your genius. It's always best to make sure your code looks as much like obfuscated perl as you can manage. jquery is great for that!)
So ... how is the jquery version superior in any way to the plain vanilla javascript version?
var myStuff = document.getElementById("myForm").getElementsByTagName("input");
for (var i=0;i<myStuff.length;i++) { myStuff[i].doSomething(); }
In vanilla version is much easier to read and understand, easier to write, and doesn't require a gigantic library.
What's REALLY funny, however, is that the vanilla version actually requires you to know less about JS than the jquery version!
Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to use that poorly-written pile of garbage.
. If you're really dedicated to luring programmers away from jQuery, I suggest you write (or recommend) a reference such as I suggested.
If you're really dedicated to promoting that useless abomination, I suggest you find some way to justify its use. As for a reference, you might start with JavaScript: The Good Parts. It won't take long before you find out how much time and effort you've wasted learning and using that bloated corpse.
Wow, that's lazy. So I guess you didn't have anything specifically in mind then?
Let's start with the biggest one: selectors. Hey, that was the whole reason jquery was written, right? .querySelector and .querySelectorAll work in all major browsers and has had broad support for years.
The most common case I see jquery abused is selecting elements by class name. Of course, most of the time it's used instead of a more appropriate solution, still, it's a popular use. .getElementsByClassName() has been around, again, for ages. For older versions of IE there is the ever popular "Ultimate GetElementsByClassName" function.
Now, in place of these well-supported (yet surprisingly little-known) functions jquery gives you a bit of illegible code:
Say you want all the elements with a particular tag contained inside another dom element.
The javascript way, works cross-browser:
var mystuff = document.getElementById("myform").getElementsByTagName("input");
The jquery way, requires useless bloated library:
var mystuff = $.makeArray($("#myid input")); // because $("myid input"); won't give you an array.
The difference? One is obvious and readable. The other looks like Larry Wall's used TP and requires a bloated poorly-designed library
Okay, what are the "major JQuery functions" according to you?
JQuery is awful. Really awful.
JavaScript is painless if you know what to avoid, and interacting with the DOM is ridiculously simple. It takes less time to learn how to use JS and work with the DOM that it does to learn how to use the pile of crap that is JQuery!
Sure, years ago it was a little handy for extremely lazy people dealing with inconsistencies across browsers, but that hasn't been a major problem for a while now. Even then, it was saner just to find a cross-browser solution to whatever problem you were having with IE than to include a gigantic library.
How many times have you seen JQuery included when all the developer needed was a single function, or to perform some task that is ridiculously simple just because all they knew how to use was that absurd library?
JQuery adds both bloat and complexity while simplifying virtually no task. That monstrosity needs to die, and die quickly.
Just learn how to use JS, it's not difficult. Hell, it's easier than learning how to use JQuery!
So ... no use-case which tablets excel at or for which tablets are superior to pre-tablet alternatives?
maybe you can finish your assignment while on the bus back home? ...
tablets also cost less than comparable quality netbooks and break less oftem
You can't possibly be serious with either of those two statements!
It will always be about the form factor and the input methods.
Indeed. That's what's at question. What applications do tablets "excel" at? The parent seemed to think there were a huge number of use-cases which tablets are superior to older alternatives. I don't know of any. ebooks are interesting, sure, but it's a stretch to say they truly 'excel' -- to the contrary, I find them much weaker for reading than older alternatives. Even though they have some advantages there, they bring with them significant draw-backs.
Better than a stack of books? In some ways, not so in others. I'd offer than a reader with an eink display is better than a tablet for reading and note that ebooks have only one advantage over physical books: size and weight.
If I have to have an ebook, a reader with an eink display is definitely better than a tablet in almost every case. Exceptions include reading crumby scanned PDFs (you'll need to do a lot of scrolling) and reading in the dark (if you don't mind staring at a light bulb). Overall, it's not as good for reading PDFs as a desktop/laptop -- extreme portability being the only advantage. That kind of narrows it to reading PDFs of scanned pages while on the go in the dark. :)
A good effort, and it is indeed a common tablet use-case. Still, I don't think this is what the parent had in mind when he wrote "HUGE amount of use-cases tablets excel at." What I'm looking for is something that current tablets really excel at, a task that they're just the best tool for completing.
Just an example. I find that my phone and tablet (using the phone as a presentation remote over Bridge) are better for giving presentations than a laptop. However, I would not claim that that paring 'excels' at the task. It's slightly more convenient than a laptop, and about on-par with a laptop and presentation remote. It's just a task that the pair does as well as the older alternative.
Imagine, if you will, a Morse code key input device. With a bit of creativity, you can find a way to use it as a full replacement for your keyboard.
As far as typing goes, you could get pretty fast. The record for 'sending' is something like 75wpm. That's a little faster than the average typist, right? That must mean that Morse code keys are a great replacement for a standard keyboard. Why, they can be made small and portable, even simulated on a touchscreen!
That you can use it to replace your keyboard does not mean that it's as good, reasonable, or even suitable for the same kinds of applications that are already well-served (and better served) by your keyboard. We don't have T9 replacement keyboards for our desktop computers for a reason.
So, yes, that a method for inputting complex equations on a crumby capacitive touch-screen is not outside the realm of possibility, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't be as painful and slow as typing on a touchscreen.
and ignore the HUGE amount of use-cases tablets excel at.
I still haven't found any application to which current tablets are better suited than pre-tablet alternatives.
I'm in no way ignoring the supposed "HUGE" number of use-cases to which tablets are the current better suited than alternatives, I just don't know what they are!
Yeah, those human resources are fucking fungilbe as shit
Indeed. I somehow turned ENT into TNG. I'm rightfully shamed!
Uninformed again, I see.
What it didn't have was a native email client pre-installed. A quick trip to AppWorld and early adopters had an email client.
You also forget how accessing email, etc. through Bridge was incredibly useful to businesses. You know, the people who were still trying to figure out how to manage and deploy tablets in the enterprise. With RIM, it was a solved problem. Drop a stack of PlayBooks off at a department and leverage your existing smartphone infrastructure.
No additional management was necessary. A lost tablet was no big deal as all the data stayed on the already-managed phone, gone from the tablet the instant it was out of bluetooth range. Users could easily share tablets, just pair the tablet with the new user (it takes seconds) and they've got all their files, email, contacts, etc. instantly on the tablet with the old users stuff gone without so much as a thought. Again, RIM was the only company that had the enterprise in mind and provided fantastic solutions to meet the needs of early business adopters.
The tech-press bashed them, sure, because they didn't take 10-seconds to think about it. Funny how they bashed RIM for "missing" email (which was always there) when they gave the iPhone a complete pass even though it was severely lacking in features including the ability to install apps, which you'd think would be essential to any so-called "smartphone". Why you think it's important to parrot their nonsense is beyond me.
So, no, it did not in any conceivable way limit the tablet to existing BB users only. Want email? Download an app. Ta-da! Problem solved.
We bash them for being retards. We bash them for saying things like this " you will never see a Blackberry with a camera".
Big outdated yawn.
Look at their new products. The RIM you're bashing is long gone.
As for the Camera issue, indeed, at the time it made absolutely no sense for RIM to offer a phone with a camera as the bulk of their customers were not allowed to have a phone with a camera at their place of work!
That was how many years ago? 7 or 8 years? They've had camera phones since at least 2006.
Why not bash Apple for the Newton or the "toaster" they came out with? How about for releasing a "smart" phone without the ability to install apps, MMS, or copy/paste?
Get with the times!
There is FAR more to a modern pocket computer then a good physical keyboard and secure email.
Indeed. RIMs products offer MUCH more that that, and have for *years*. Try to keep up. It's not difficult.
So... what do you disagree with? I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your preconceptions. Maybe you should learn something about the topic before you discuss it?
even their hardware meyboard phones have lately been sub-par.
The keyboard on the 9900 is almost universally recognized by reviewers as the best mobile keyboard ever made.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you've either never used a BB or haven't touched one in the past 3 years.
Why do people feel the need to bash other companies that *haven't* done something evil? What's the point?
LOL! Someone hasn't used their current handsets or seen their new OS in action.
What's in like in 2010?
What does RIM offer above the others? Security, best-in-class remote management, and Balance (seemless work/home separation on the handset no one else does this.)
Your knowledge is WAY out of date.
RIM isn't insolvent or even close to closing up shop. Their user-base is still growing, ffs! They reported their first loss in q1, though that was from the inventory write-down. They've scaled back staff (most likely those supporting their old OS) which is rumored to save them ~$1B annually.
In contrast, Sony posted their 5th straight quarterly loss yet no one is claiming "Sony is dying" -- Slashdotters were crying "RIM is dead" back when they were still the #1 selling smartphones on the market!
This particular meme has little merit. I'm sure it's fun for some, though I don't understand why.
They discontinued the 16gb version. 32gb+ models are not discontinued. They're releasing an updated tablet with LTE later this year.
Oh, the current PlayBook, 16gb model included, will also get updated to BB10.
Bash RIM all you want, but you can't deny that their new OS (QNX-based, btw) is impressive both technically and from UI perspective.
TNG could have been okay had they picked a captain that wasn't Scott Bakula. He has all the range of the kid picked to play a rock in the 3rd grade class play.
Sure, his one style worked well playing a reluctant hero just out to do the right thing in Quantum Leap, but it did not make for a good "leader of leaders" blazing a trail in the final frontier. (The writers didn't help, for sure. It's like they were writing for Bakula. Worst. Captain. Ever.)
The sexy (you can tell because her lips looked like balloons) emotion-loving Vulcan didn't help either.
I never made it through the first season. It just sucked too hard. I remember saying "Archer, fuck, you're investing way too much time in this guys birthday. Go do captain stuff!"
Really? I've seen zillions of higher-spec'd tablets at much lower prices.
Of course, this is just a waste of my time. Apple usually has one spec that is higher than other competing products which quickly becomes "the spec" to beat -- failing that, all the Apple fans just claim "specs don't matter".
Compare the "New iPad "to a year-old tablet like the PlayBook and you'll find they're very much on-par as far as specs go, with RIM's tablet even ahead in a few areas. You'll find plenty of Android tablets that out-spec the iPad at every generation.
I know, "hurr-durr the display!" That's their current "advantage" on tablets. Of course, it won't last long. The high-resolution display on the iPhone has long been surpassed (even the test unit RIM gave developers has a higher PPI), the same will happen with tablets. The difference, of course, is that developers on other platforms write apps that can handle different resolutions, so they're not trapped like apple into always-doubling the resolution. They've painted themselves in to a corner here. After other manufactures pass them up, they'll be back to having one of the lowest resolutions on the market with little hope of jumping ahead again as we're quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Sorry, the iPad isn't economy in any way. If you care about specs, a high-end Android tablet is the only way to go. (For the record, I dislike Android. Still, I can't deny the facts.)
Lol!
Their user base has been growing year after year. Sorry, it seems that contrary to your assertion, *more* people are buying their devices than ever.
What's more likely is that RIM is dropping the CA manufacturing facility because it's more expensive than other facilities. They had a period of exponential growth, and have been 'trimming the fat' from that expansion.
On the PB, a vertical swipe from bezel to bezel. From a full power-off, with the rarely used power button, just like the iPhone.
Wait, what? 95 was shit, 98 wasn't great, but it was a vast improvement (at least after SE) over 95
Really, it takes some serious doing to make the alternating good/bad nonsense look plausable. It's a myth, plain and simple.
256 colors with EGA? I think not!
If you were independently wealthy and had a VGA card sure, but only in mode 0x13 (320 x 200).
If you wanted something ridiculously awesome like 640x480x256 (remember when that was the most astonishing thing you'd ever seen?), you needed SVGA. Even then, you wouldn't have still been running Windows 1.0 by the time you could buy the card. IIRC, you need Windows 3.1 for that anyway.
The home button is unnecessary when you have a well-designed touch-only UI. Apple has only made things worse by stuffing extra functions in to the home button that would be better served by additional keys. Right now, the ugly thing takes you home, switches between applications, launches voice control, launches Siri, launches spotlight, launches iPod controls, (did I miss any? probably!) depending on when and how you press it.
Take a look at WebOS or, even better, the UI on the PlayBook to see a touch-only UI done correctly. They both have a simple suite of gestures that are obvious and quickly become automatic. BB10 takes things even further with 'flow' -- no buttons need apply.
Don't get me wrong, I think buttons are great. Stuffing tons of functions in to a single button is not -- it's just bad design. A few programmable convenience keys and/or a set of well-defined dedicated keys (see: Android) can be very useful.
Apple's home button is an albatross their designers are probably desperate to eliminate. It's not the future, it's an anachronism.
Back on topic: I think a bezel gesture like a bottom-in swipe or corner-in swipe would work much better for launching a windows-esque start menu / metro-style home screen than a physical button.