I'm equally likely to do either on the weekend when I'm not paid to. My weekend time is too valuable to put up with such a painful programming environment.
Responsive UI, attention to detail, ease of use—these things help make programming comfortable and fun, and Ruby development has that in spades.
...is naive.
He's rich and well-connected. That the Bush administrations DOJ--the same one that overwhelmingly investigated Democrats over Republicans--bungled his case probably just saved them from having to pardon him.
Personally, I'm not interested in the varying methods that big game houses can extract revenue from their sweatshop produced big titles. I want to know about the future of Open Source game development, and where that'll go in the next decade. The Linux kernal and other big projects prove that large, complex projects can be accomplished under the FOSS model.
The problem with this is that open source tends to excel at function and suck at polish. Despite excellent function, most OSS developers can't develop an interface or decent icon artwork to save their lives. It's just not where their strength lies. Now, for many applications - compressing video, burning a CD, etc, this is something that we can easily live with. Our goal in using the app is to complete a task and so long as the task gets completed then everyone is happy.
I think this is ready to change. The field of User Interface Design is really only starting to blossom. Programming has been around for a few decades now. Once UID becomes as mainstream as programming is, there will be many more designers and architects with the same incentives to build free software as there are programmers now. We're just not there yet.
Having an external web browser and internal one isn't so bad an idea. Our ridiculous CMS supports only FF2 and IE6, our bug tracker doesn't work in Webkit. So I have three browsers: one for work apps, one for development, one for surfing / docs. Keep crashes from ruining your day too.
Rarely do I see a bunch of programmers arguing for months or years over exactly what a particular piece of software documentation means, how it applies in particular situations etc.
No? Then you've clearly never written an application for the Web. There's been a ten year argument about what "JavaScript" means, and they still haven't figured it out.
Of course this is bad UI and the failure is ultimately that of the programmer."
I wonder what percentage of programmers double as UI designers. I be it's less than 25%. The reality is that by the time most programmers get their requirements, error scenarios often don't meet up with UI designers' assumptions. So then you're stuck with either popping a dialog, designing a different ham-fisted solution or going back to the designer and adding a lot of time to the development.
I'm not defending bad modal dialogues, but in complex software with heavy deadline pressure, programmers often have to make decisions they'd rather not. It's not a bad programmer, it's a bad process.
I came here to learn about hockey and there is no hockey to be found.
Really, he is just expressing his existential angst. Aren't we all going somewhere to learn about hockey in our own way? Yet we wander about in lonely, unfriendly desolation.
No sir, you are not just some idiot. You are the quintessential idiot that represents humanity's great mortal struggle with meaninglessness.
Ascender believes that although not perfect, EOT represents the best current solution for type designers and font foundries to protect their Intellectual Property.
Note who their constituency is. Not Web designers. Not users. Not browser makers. Not the health of the Web, etc. This page is to lobby Font Shops to modify their EULA's to allow EOT. Most high-end font shops don't allow embedding at all unless it's in an image. Check out HF&J's ridiculous policy.
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same.
That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
This controversy is stupid, but it's also exactly when open source is supposed to allow. The entire idea behind Richard Stallman's movement is that if you don't like something, build your own.
At the same time, great design requires saying no. You don't see these stupid option fests in truly great user interfaces.
I've been very excited about Artesia: Adventures in the Known World. It's very new and fairly complex, but its focus on RP and plot over chopping up monsters is very cool.
Although many deride the W3C's approval process, this ISO kludge demonstrates the benefit of the W3C process. W3C standards cannot leave Candidate Recommendation status until they have two fully-functional implementations and a test suite. Since it appears that OOXML could never meet these requirements, it could never become a standard through the W3C.
I'm pretty sure that this "backlash" effect is largely caused by a lot of toolish windbaggery in the tech writing industry about Apple and its products. Almost every week some tech writer on a PC-centric publication writes a column about how Apple will never be successful unless they license FairPlay and their operating system, and that no one really likes the iPhone.
In my experience the people who love to flame Apple are either those who have never used them or used them ten years ago. They have three different lines: "it's not compatible," "there's no software available," or "they're only for rich vegetarian liberals." In comparisson, the majority of Mac users grew up with PCs and have made the choice to pay more for a better computing experience.
I'm not saying that some Mac lovers are not zealots, or that one choice is necessarily better than the other. I am, however, saying that are pretty frequenly baited into the "flaming" mentioned in TFA.
Stop thinking about JavaScript as a Internet language. JavaScript and HTML rendering engines are all over the place now: Firefox Extensions, Thunderbird/Sunbird/Songbird, Dashboard, Adobe Air, Acrobat, the Wii, the iPhone...updates to JavaScript are not useful for the public Web, but are incredibly useful for highly-targeted platforms.
I have an HTC TYTN II that works with my AT&T SIM card, despite the fact that the Taiwanese firmware in my TYTN II is not crippled like the AT&T firmware in the TILT.
Fair warning. This magic GSM mojo works for 3G and GRPS, but not EDGE. If your Asian phone has to touch EDGE it becomes an Asian brick. Otherwise my HTC Trinity would have been perfect.
What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately.
You're confusing Republicans with Conservatives. Since 2000 the former hasn't believed in much except for cutting taxes, promoting monopolies, scaring people witless and building fun things like fences and space missiles.
More insightful than at first it seems. I used to use Goodsearch, but ended up abandoning it as the piss-poor Yahoo-powered results weren't worth the boon to my conscience.
While your analysis of the e-mail is astute, I think you missed Zeldman's larger point, that this e-mail is just one piece of evidence in growing frustration amongst rank-and-file web developers with the W3C. Otherdevelopershaveagreed.
I used to be a member of some W3C mailing lists, but got frustrated by the lack of momentum. Most of the e-mails were deflected as, "someone has already proposed that, read the archives!" or "that is not implementable." Constrast that to WHATWG, where my comment on a spec not granted me a reply from that spec's author, but also gave me a bit of enlightenment into the process.
I was a flag carrier, a proselytizer. Now I just read mozillazine and the Opera blog to see what's coming. It does seem to me that lately all the W3C is good at moving on ispublishingstandardsotherpeople wrote.
It's in Flash. Seriously, the biggest threat to the Internet is not lack of standards support in IE, but the speed and robustness with which Macromedia (and now Adobe) are developing an integrated, immersive web publishing platform. (X)HTML/CSS/JavaScript already can't compete with the power and flexibility of Flash. If it weren't for the horriffic UI and price, Flash development would be the new IE.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, using Eclipse is free.
Slamming my head against a cement wall is too.
I'm equally likely to do either on the weekend when I'm not paid to. My weekend time is too valuable to put up with such a painful programming environment.
Responsive UI, attention to detail, ease of use—these things help make programming comfortable and fun, and Ruby development has that in spades.
...is naive. He's rich and well-connected. That the Bush administrations DOJ--the same one that overwhelmingly investigated Democrats over Republicans--bungled his case probably just saved them from having to pardon him.
Personally, I'm not interested in the varying methods that big game houses can extract revenue from their sweatshop produced big titles. I want to know about the future of Open Source game development, and where that'll go in the next decade. The Linux kernal and other big projects prove that large, complex projects can be accomplished under the FOSS model.
The problem with this is that open source tends to excel at function and suck at polish. Despite excellent function, most OSS developers can't develop an interface or decent icon artwork to save their lives. It's just not where their strength lies. Now, for many applications - compressing video, burning a CD, etc, this is something that we can easily live with. Our goal in using the app is to complete a task and so long as the task gets completed then everyone is happy.
I think this is ready to change. The field of User Interface Design is really only starting to blossom. Programming has been around for a few decades now. Once UID becomes as mainstream as programming is, there will be many more designers and architects with the same incentives to build free software as there are programmers now. We're just not there yet.
Having an external web browser and internal one isn't so bad an idea. Our ridiculous CMS supports only FF2 and IE6, our bug tracker doesn't work in Webkit. So I have three browsers: one for work apps, one for development, one for surfing / docs. Keep crashes from ruining your day too.
Rarely do I see a bunch of programmers arguing for months or years over exactly what a particular piece of software documentation means, how it applies in particular situations etc.
No? Then you've clearly never written an application for the Web. There's been a ten year argument about what "JavaScript" means, and they still haven't figured it out.
Of course this is bad UI and the failure is ultimately that of the programmer."
I wonder what percentage of programmers double as UI designers. I be it's less than 25%. The reality is that by the time most programmers get their requirements, error scenarios often don't meet up with UI designers' assumptions. So then you're stuck with either popping a dialog, designing a different ham-fisted solution or going back to the designer and adding a lot of time to the development.
I'm not defending bad modal dialogues, but in complex software with heavy deadline pressure, programmers often have to make decisions they'd rather not. It's not a bad programmer, it's a bad process.
Really, he is just expressing his existential angst. Aren't we all going somewhere to learn about hockey in our own way? Yet we wander about in lonely, unfriendly desolation.
No sir, you are not just some idiot. You are the quintessential idiot that represents humanity's great mortal struggle with meaninglessness.
Note who their constituency is. Not Web designers. Not users. Not browser makers. Not the health of the Web, etc. This page is to lobby Font Shops to modify their EULA's to allow EOT. Most high-end font shops don't allow embedding at all unless it's in an image. Check out HF&J's ridiculous policy.
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same. That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
You mean other than these?
This controversy is stupid, but it's also exactly when open source is supposed to allow. The entire idea behind Richard Stallman's movement is that if you don't like something, build your own. At the same time, great design requires saying no. You don't see these stupid option fests in truly great user interfaces.
I've been very excited about Artesia: Adventures in the Known World. It's very new and fairly complex, but its focus on RP and plot over chopping up monsters is very cool.
Have you forgotten ISO-HTML? You see a lot of implementations of that nowadays.
Were I blind and a Janus customer I wouldn't see this as a problem. I'd see this as a meal ticket. Where's that lawyer when you need him?
Although many deride the W3C's approval process, this ISO kludge demonstrates the benefit of the W3C process. W3C standards cannot leave Candidate Recommendation status until they have two fully-functional implementations and a test suite. Since it appears that OOXML could never meet these requirements, it could never become a standard through the W3C.
I'm pretty sure that this "backlash" effect is largely caused by a lot of toolish windbaggery in the tech writing industry about Apple and its products. Almost every week some tech writer on a PC-centric publication writes a column about how Apple will never be successful unless they license FairPlay and their operating system, and that no one really likes the iPhone.
In my experience the people who love to flame Apple are either those who have never used them or used them ten years ago. They have three different lines: "it's not compatible," "there's no software available," or "they're only for rich vegetarian liberals." In comparisson, the majority of Mac users grew up with PCs and have made the choice to pay more for a better computing experience.
I'm not saying that some Mac lovers are not zealots, or that one choice is necessarily better than the other. I am, however, saying that are pretty frequenly baited into the "flaming" mentioned in TFA.
Stop thinking about JavaScript as a Internet language. JavaScript and HTML rendering engines are all over the place now: Firefox Extensions, Thunderbird/Sunbird/Songbird, Dashboard, Adobe Air, Acrobat, the Wii, the iPhone...updates to JavaScript are not useful for the public Web, but are incredibly useful for highly-targeted platforms.
Fair warning. This magic GSM mojo works for 3G and GRPS, but not EDGE. If your Asian phone has to touch EDGE it becomes an Asian brick. Otherwise my HTC Trinity would have been perfect.
All of this headache would have been avoided if she just checked her local flea market.
They are going to be so pissed.
The airline industry. The insurance industry. The music industry. The movie industry. The telecommunications industry. Need more?
More insightful than at first it seems. I used to use Goodsearch, but ended up abandoning it as the piss-poor Yahoo-powered results weren't worth the boon to my conscience.
While your analysis of the e-mail is astute, I think you missed Zeldman's larger point, that this e-mail is just one piece of evidence in growing frustration amongst rank-and-file web developers with the W3C. Other developers have agreed.
I used to be a member of some W3C mailing lists, but got frustrated by the lack of momentum. Most of the e-mails were deflected as, "someone has already proposed that, read the archives!" or "that is not implementable." Constrast that to WHATWG, where my comment on a spec not granted me a reply from that spec's author, but also gave me a bit of enlightenment into the process.
I was a flag carrier, a proselytizer. Now I just read mozillazine and the Opera blog to see what's coming. It does seem to me that lately all the W3C is good at moving on is publishing standards other people wrote.
It's in Flash. Seriously, the biggest threat to the Internet is not lack of standards support in IE, but the speed and robustness with which Macromedia (and now Adobe) are developing an integrated, immersive web publishing platform. (X)HTML/CSS/JavaScript already can't compete with the power and flexibility of Flash. If it weren't for the horriffic UI and price, Flash development would be the new IE.