Python is an Object Oriented language experiment. An interpreted language that can be compiled.
Based on the Java ideal without the "Everything is an Object", clearer syntax than Perl, and more consistency within the syntax (than Java).
Beeep, wrong
Python is not based on any "java ideal", and everything in python is indeed an object, a module is an object, a function is an object, and "1" is an object by itself.
And it can't be compiled, it's a purely interpreted language, it's merely loosely syntax-checked and translated to bytecode (not compiled mind you, that's several steps under java). Some utils write machine code at "compile time" (Psycho), but it's not built in the base language in any way.
Except for the syntax differences, what is the difference between ruby,perl,php and python?
Features, object orientation, philopophy (you don't code in Ruby or Python the way you'd code in Perl, and you don't code in PHP at all if you can avoid it)
It's not trying to conceal it's identity, it was just a poor implementation decision.
You fail, it actually was trying to conceal it's identity when that was implemented.
Let's get back to the Browser War, around 1995-1996.
The king of the world was Netscape, Creator of the Tagsoup, Generator of teh Shinies. To use Netscape Navigator's wonders while staying accessible to other, less interresting, less graphical browsers, quite a lot of people retarded (against all common sense) to check for the "Mozilla" UA prefix in order to feed improved content to Navigator while feeding impoverished (but readable) version to the others.
Enters Microsoft and it's Internet Explorer.
By the birth of Internet Explorer 3, MS started to have a browser on par with it's main oponent (Navigator) graphically wise... but because of UA checks it's navigator was still fed impoverished versions of the pages... Quite hard to gain the market when you have no way to show that you're better (supposedly) than your oponent.
So the [sarcasm]wise[/sarcasm] decision was made to include the "Mozilla" prefix into Internet Explorer's UAS in order to get identified as Navigator and get the improved content... boom, spoofing & identity concealing.
If the Opera developers wanted Opera to be counted properly, it wouldn't spoof it's user agent by default. {snip} IE doesn't
Wrong, the "Mozilla/4.0" at the beginning of the IE UA is nothing more than spoofing Netscape's old UAS, and adding (compatible, mybrowsername) doesn't make it any better.
The Mozilla Foundation is the only one supposed to use the "Mozilla/x.y" UAS, anyone else using it is spoofing, case closed.
That's a mistake, you should get rid of your UA checking altogether, rely on conditional comments if you can, css hacks (underscore hack being the most reliable and tidy one) and JS object detection for what's missing.
As long as the state doesn't pay for/fund religious channels any more than they fund private channels, and don't give them special offers, religious channels will be considered just as private channels, and I therefore don't see how church and state separation could be at state.
You're right, though, that the city government can do this. However, the private corporations involved can also shutdown their services and liquidate and/or sabotage all of their infrastructure.
Say, is anyone supposed to give a flying fuck about that?
Let them sabotage all they want and drive more people to public networks, as long as these manage to make money over acceptable time frames (a few years) and ain't permanently deficitary there is no problem here, the customers (you) pays the right price for the right service (and no one prevents competitors from rising) and the state/city makes more money, improving the state/city or lowering the taxes in return.
Yeah right, which is probably why they won't implement it even though CSS 2.1 first went to Candidate Recommandation 18 months ago (Febuary 2004) (and had the time to go back to working draft a month ago)
I've met "progressive enhancement" once before. You've never seen such ugly, malformed, duplicitous code. Non standards compliant web site code that tries to be cross-browser is most of the reason I decided not to get into web development.
Wrong "progressive enhancement", the ones he's talking about is layering your website and building each layer on top of the previous fully fonctional one. This means that each layer yields a fully usable website by itself and merely improves on the previous ones, aka if a website doesn't support what's in layer "n" it'll still get the fully functional website generated by layers up to "n-1".
I'd advise you to read Hesekth's article on "Progressive Enhancement and the future of Web Design" for more informations about the principle of progressive enhancement.
As a side note, it should be noted that PE is an improvement over the philosophy of graceful degradation, a more complete way of doing things The Right Way (TM)
You don't, either you use CSS hacks (not really a good thing) or you use Conditional Comments for IE specific code, or you rely on IE lacks through the use of CSS2 selectors (if they ever implemented them, they'd probably implement most of CSS2 too...
And for javascript, instead of browser sniffing your're supposed to use object sniffing (but in a pair of cases)
CSS 2.1 was done, as a matter of fact, but it very recently went back to the Working Draft state for a few minor corrections, mostly to reflect current implementations. Doesn't mean it's "flawed", and doesn't mean IE7 devs can't fix the dozens of flaws in IE's CSS 1 support...
Completely wrong, you fail, please hang yourself.
At the beginning, the UA was merely a mean of identifying yourself. You were supposed to say who you were for statistical purposes period.
But when Netscape started to create quite a lot of tags it was the only browser to understand, some devs got the [sarcasm]really nice idea[/sarcasm] to parse the UAs and only serve "improved" content to "Mozilla" (netscape) while feeding the dumbed down one to any other browser.
Subsequently, when IE started to get good at displaying the graphically improved NS tags MS wanted it to get the improved content instead of the fugly one... and put "Mozilla" in front of their UAS...
The dev's check of the UAS was retarded, MS' move was ugly but had a reason, yet two wrongs don't make a right.
So
The need for the "Mozilla" UA substring comes from the retarded web devs, not Netscape
And nowadays that isn't even needed, since Opera using it's own UAS (~Opera/8.01 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en)) usually has no trouble displaying anything. Shame it defaults to IE impersonation though.
In fact, that UAS checking got as retarded as checking for the version (4.0), which is why IE6 and IE7 will wear "Mozilla/4.0" (while Firefox and NS7 have Mozilla/5.0".
Netscape and Mozilla foundation's browsers are the only ones entitled to the Mozilla UAS, and MS should grow some balls and remove them from it's browser. It'll break some site? f*ing big deal, means that the websites were shitty in the first place.
Amazing. You could use one of the dozens of free, user-friendly FTP apps then.
I myself actually use a user-friendly non-free FTP client (and a free non user-friendly one), but that's another matter
Are university students really so stupid they can't work this out? If so, let them save their files on a stone tablet.
Uni students are humans, every human has limitations, some people have severe limitations in understanding how a computer and computer softwares in general work. Uni students are no exceptions (except that the ratio of retarded/non-retarded is supposed to be under the one of the average population). You'd probably surprised if you knew what you consider easy and natural that Joe Sixpack doesn't begin to apprehend, let alone do.
I, for one, am surprised just about every day by things users just can't manage to do even though they don't _seem_ intellectually challenged.
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Raible's Comparison of Web Frameworks would be a good start for you, along with the Equinox demo
Nope, you fail, the semicolon doesn't exist in Python,
doesn't mean jack shit to a Python interpreter
Beeep, wrong
Python is not based on any "java ideal", and everything in python is indeed an object, a module is an object, a function is an object, and "1" is an object by itself.
And it can't be compiled, it's a purely interpreted language, it's merely loosely syntax-checked and translated to bytecode (not compiled mind you, that's several steps under java). Some utils write machine code at "compile time" (Psycho), but it's not built in the base language in any way.
Features, object orientation, philopophy (you don't code in Ruby or Python the way you'd code in Perl, and you don't code in PHP at all if you can avoid it)
Struts is a piece of shit and probably the worst java framework available...
Oh, and if you run it on top of Tomcat you're doomed...
... in javascript
Let's get back to the Browser War, around 1995-1996.
The king of the world was Netscape, Creator of the Tagsoup, Generator of teh Shinies. To use Netscape Navigator's wonders while staying accessible to other, less interresting, less graphical browsers, quite a lot of people retarded (against all common sense) to check for the "Mozilla" UA prefix in order to feed improved content to Navigator while feeding impoverished (but readable) version to the others.
Enters Microsoft and it's Internet Explorer.
By the birth of Internet Explorer 3, MS started to have a browser on par with it's main oponent (Navigator) graphically wise... but because of UA checks it's navigator was still fed impoverished versions of the pages... Quite hard to gain the market when you have no way to show that you're better (supposedly) than your oponent.
So the [sarcasm]wise[/sarcasm] decision was made to include the "Mozilla" prefix into Internet Explorer's UAS in order to get identified as Navigator and get the improved content... boom, spoofing & identity concealing.
The Mozilla Foundation is the only one supposed to use the "Mozilla/x.y" UAS, anyone else using it is spoofing, case closed.
Well MSIE is probably the only browser you can *not* make undetectable anyway...
Without AJAX?
I guess you forgot to check this page
That's a mistake, you should get rid of your UA checking altogether, rely on conditional comments if you can, css hacks (underscore hack being the most reliable and tidy one) and JS object detection for what's missing.
unless you fit them all in the "href" field, preventing regular browsers from using any of them.
As long as the state doesn't pay for/fund religious channels any more than they fund private channels, and don't give them special offers, religious channels will be considered just as private channels, and I therefore don't see how church and state separation could be at state.
Let them sabotage all they want and drive more people to public networks, as long as these manage to make money over acceptable time frames (a few years) and ain't permanently deficitary there is no problem here, the customers (you) pays the right price for the right service (and no one prevents competitors from rising) and the state/city makes more money, improving the state/city or lowering the taxes in return.
Yeah right, which is probably why they won't implement it even though CSS 2.1 first went to Candidate Recommandation 18 months ago (Febuary 2004) (and had the time to go back to working draft a month ago)
I'd advise you to read Hesekth's article on "Progressive Enhancement and the future of Web Design" for more informations about the principle of progressive enhancement.
As a side note, it should be noted that PE is an improvement over the philosophy of graceful degradation, a more complete way of doing things The Right Way (TM)
Well paying $100 for a website won't ever get you more than a dog's breakfast anyway...
You don't, either you use CSS hacks (not really a good thing) or you use Conditional Comments for IE specific code, or you rely on IE lacks through the use of CSS2 selectors (if they ever implemented them, they'd probably implement most of CSS2 too...
And for javascript, instead of browser sniffing your're supposed to use object sniffing (but in a pair of cases)
UAS should only be used for statistics purposes, doing browser checks through UAS for feature picking is a Bad Thing ©
CSS 2.1 was done, as a matter of fact, but it very recently went back to the Working Draft state for a few minor corrections, mostly to reflect current implementations. Doesn't mean it's "flawed", and doesn't mean IE7 devs can't fix the dozens of flaws in IE's CSS 1 support...
At the beginning, the UA was merely a mean of identifying yourself. You were supposed to say who you were for statistical purposes period.
But when Netscape started to create quite a lot of tags it was the only browser to understand, some devs got the [sarcasm]really nice idea[/sarcasm] to parse the UAs and only serve "improved" content to "Mozilla" (netscape) while feeding the dumbed down one to any other browser.
Subsequently, when IE started to get good at displaying the graphically improved NS tags MS wanted it to get the improved content instead of the fugly one... and put "Mozilla" in front of their UAS...
The dev's check of the UAS was retarded, MS' move was ugly but had a reason, yet two wrongs don't make a right.
So
- The need for the "Mozilla" UA substring comes from the retarded web devs, not Netscape
- And nowadays that isn't even needed, since Opera using it's own UAS (~Opera/8.01 (Windows NT 5.0; U; en)) usually has no trouble displaying anything. Shame it defaults to IE impersonation though.
In fact, that UAS checking got as retarded as checking for the version (4.0), which is why IE6 and IE7 will wear "Mozilla/4.0" (while Firefox and NS7 have Mozilla/5.0".Netscape and Mozilla foundation's browsers are the only ones entitled to the Mozilla UAS, and MS should grow some balls and remove them from it's browser. It'll break some site? f*ing big deal, means that the websites were shitty in the first place.
I, for one, am surprised just about every day by things users just can't manage to do even though they don't _seem_ intellectually challenged.
FTPing in browser didn't allow you to upload but in Netscape, last time i checked