The main problem with web dev is most devs are terrible. Admittedly that is mainly a problem with such inconsistency in JavaScript, and HTML allowing spaghetti syntax all over the place.
I wouldn't say they're terrible, but most front-end developers seem to come from a background with classical inheritance, which isn't what Javascript is about. Javascript is about the prototype and method delegation, which can be very elegant when done right; however, most front-end developers don't have enough of an understanding of the language in order to do it right.
And lets not get started on scope. Holy crap, so many people are clueless about it.
Again, it's because these people come from a classical background, which forces them to implement crazy hacks in order to work around their lack of understanding of prototypal languages like Javascript. When you combine that with having to deal with IE quirks, you get MacGyvered code -- you know, code held together with bubble gum and paper clips -- that pollutes the global namespace at every turn.
Not really since most places still target IE7 due to a still relatively large XP userbase. IE continues to improve; however, unless you're on Win8, you won't see IE10 and you'd still be stuck with the broken box model in IE9.
Wrong! As a professional web developer who both uses OS X and works alongside other developers who use OS X, I know first hand a large number develop against Firefox before testing in Webkit. I also know a handful who develop against Opera before testing against any other browser; however, most of the decisions to not target Opera stems from management decisions based on analytics. Still these same management types still tell us to target Firefox and IE going back to IE7.
As far as using Webkit extensions, if any developer uses any Webkit extension it's because: a) they target mobile and the Webkit extensions render faster that any W3C/JQuery/Javascript implementation equivalent, or b) they're prototyping a new browser engine feature knowing full well that it won't be cross-browser compatible. That said, the problem in the past that many had with IE non-compliance had more to do with IE's reliance on ActiveX controls in order to implement new features which not only locked you into the browser, but also locked you into a particular OS. And, since Webkit has no OS constraint along with performance improvements attached to Webkit extensions, no one is -- to use the parlance -- kicking over bins over the purported standards non-compliance coming from Webkit.
Then again, the whole purpose of vendor extensions is for the community to experiment with new features before they become part of the W3C standard. Also, it's important to note that not only does Webkit have its extensions, but Firefox (with -moz-), Opera (with -o-), and even the newest versions of IE (with -ms-) have their own extensions for the purpose of introducing new features out into the wild. And, it seems very few have any problem with this setup.
The big difference is that Windows actually was just capable of shitty-looking Reversi or Solitaire back in the day when DOS was still the primary PC gaming platform. DirectX changed that and it was only after the release of DirectX that gaming on Windows became viable.
Linux however has had gaming capabilities for a long time, but still there's a huge lack of compelling titles. The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics, not a technical reason like with DOS/Windows.
But, with Windows, Microsoft had full control over what went into DirectX since it's a proprietary API and is capable of adding features whenever it feels the need. On the flipside, Linux has Open{x}L, which is usually a year behind in feature set (geometry shaders anyone?). Combine that with a relatively small user base and a prevailing belief that Windows is more user-friendly, and you have a recipe for failure in Linux adoption for gaming.
I used to have a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone, and it was gorgeous (HTC Pure). On the other hand, it also took over ten seconds to answer a call because it was so slow and was even slower if you tried to multitask. Granted, Windows Phone OS has vastly improved since then; however, I still have that bad memory in my head.
"In fact, very little respect is afforded there to the engineering of Apple products in general, versus their design and marketing."
That's because frankly none is deserved since the second coming of Apple.
That's the point, isn't it? Apple chose design and form over function and engineering sensibilities since its "second coming," which led to the litany of flaws you mentioned. The problems you mentioned aren't the result of Apple's inability to recruit and retain top engineering talent, but the problems do stem from Apple's willingness to release a product with technical problems just for the sake of aesthetics instead of going with a less sexy design so that they don't have to sacrifice quality.
Cause and effect, my friend -- it seems you have it reversed.
I don't think you can just limit it to "every teabagger and right wing nut-job." I'm certain you can include everyone who believes Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, along with all the Occupy folk. Perhaps, the closer you get to the outer fringe of the political spectrum, the more susceptible you are to believing conspiratorial nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people still think XML is a language...
I thought that too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU
The main problem with web dev is most devs are terrible. Admittedly that is mainly a problem with such inconsistency in JavaScript, and HTML allowing spaghetti syntax all over the place.
I wouldn't say they're terrible, but most front-end developers seem to come from a background with classical inheritance, which isn't what Javascript is about. Javascript is about the prototype and method delegation, which can be very elegant when done right; however, most front-end developers don't have enough of an understanding of the language in order to do it right.
And lets not get started on scope. Holy crap, so many people are clueless about it.
Again, it's because these people come from a classical background, which forces them to implement crazy hacks in order to work around their lack of understanding of prototypal languages like Javascript. When you combine that with having to deal with IE quirks, you get MacGyvered code -- you know, code held together with bubble gum and paper clips -- that pollutes the global namespace at every turn.
Not really since most places still target IE7 due to a still relatively large XP userbase. IE continues to improve; however, unless you're on Win8, you won't see IE10 and you'd still be stuck with the broken box model in IE9.
Wrong! As a professional web developer who both uses OS X and works alongside other developers who use OS X, I know first hand a large number develop against Firefox before testing in Webkit. I also know a handful who develop against Opera before testing against any other browser; however, most of the decisions to not target Opera stems from management decisions based on analytics. Still these same management types still tell us to target Firefox and IE going back to IE7.
As far as using Webkit extensions, if any developer uses any Webkit extension it's because: a) they target mobile and the Webkit extensions render faster that any W3C/JQuery/Javascript implementation equivalent, or b) they're prototyping a new browser engine feature knowing full well that it won't be cross-browser compatible. That said, the problem in the past that many had with IE non-compliance had more to do with IE's reliance on ActiveX controls in order to implement new features which not only locked you into the browser, but also locked you into a particular OS. And, since Webkit has no OS constraint along with performance improvements attached to Webkit extensions, no one is -- to use the parlance -- kicking over bins over the purported standards non-compliance coming from Webkit.
Then again, the whole purpose of vendor extensions is for the community to experiment with new features before they become part of the W3C standard. Also, it's important to note that not only does Webkit have its extensions, but Firefox (with -moz-), Opera (with -o-), and even the newest versions of IE (with -ms-) have their own extensions for the purpose of introducing new features out into the wild. And, it seems very few have any problem with this setup.
In America, we call that a spending cut.
Considering how JScript turned out, do we want to go down this road again?
Only if that happened in Madden.
Rather than making bad games that do everything poorly, why not focus on better games that do a few things well?
Looks like zombie Steve Jobs has come back from the grave to make an AC post on Slashdot.
He typed "GOD" in the console.
The big difference is that Windows actually was just capable of shitty-looking Reversi or Solitaire back in the day when DOS was still the primary PC gaming platform. DirectX changed that and it was only after the release of DirectX that gaming on Windows became viable.
Linux however has had gaming capabilities for a long time, but still there's a huge lack of compelling titles. The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics, not a technical reason like with DOS/Windows.
But, with Windows, Microsoft had full control over what went into DirectX since it's a proprietary API and is capable of adding features whenever it feels the need. On the flipside, Linux has Open{x}L, which is usually a year behind in feature set (geometry shaders anyone?). Combine that with a relatively small user base and a prevailing belief that Windows is more user-friendly, and you have a recipe for failure in Linux adoption for gaming.
Sometimes, I wish I had a job that required me to use my sex ed training on the job. Then, I remember -- I'm not a hooker.
I used to have a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone, and it was gorgeous (HTC Pure). On the other hand, it also took over ten seconds to answer a call because it was so slow and was even slower if you tried to multitask. Granted, Windows Phone OS has vastly improved since then; however, I still have that bad memory in my head.
How else can LA County squander $2 billion on 15 miles of light rail?
Come on! This should be modded up. This is the hardest I've laughed while reading /. in a long time.
Seriously, any time I hear of stuff like that, I think it's gotta suck for Christopher Reeve now.
"In fact, very little respect is afforded there to the engineering of Apple products in general, versus their design and marketing."
That's because frankly none is deserved since the second coming of Apple.
That's the point, isn't it? Apple chose design and form over function and engineering sensibilities since its "second coming," which led to the litany of flaws you mentioned. The problems you mentioned aren't the result of Apple's inability to recruit and retain top engineering talent, but the problems do stem from Apple's willingness to release a product with technical problems just for the sake of aesthetics instead of going with a less sexy design so that they don't have to sacrifice quality.
Cause and effect, my friend -- it seems you have it reversed.
Chances are it was an outside agencies that wrote the sales pitch and that Jobs can't even really take credit for that either.
According to his most recent bio, that would be Regis McKenna.
The only difference is the epsilon involved.
Anarchist Cookbook? Maybe, that was their gateway into science and engineering.
I don't think you can just limit it to "every teabagger and right wing nut-job." I'm certain you can include everyone who believes Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, along with all the Occupy folk. Perhaps, the closer you get to the outer fringe of the political spectrum, the more susceptible you are to believing conspiratorial nonsense.
Ironic, since their first product was priced at $666. Can anyone say, "Apropos"?
No surprise since American Muslims tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
...in Python!
I take it you're posting this from North Korea.