You mean ECMA 3.1, not Actionscript. Actionscript is a brand name that Adobe slapped on javascript and called it their own. I code ECMA 3.1 with.NET all the time. It's pretty awesome.
"your aged parents" aren't in any way representative of the majority of apple users who absolutely despise that godawful one button mouse. It wouldn't be so bad if apple left that design decision back in the 1980's, but they keep making these mice wih one button (or with a single button you can't even see) due to Jobs' anemic design aesthetic. Jobs has always been about 'form over function' and this is one example where he chose to make something less functional in order to satisfy his eyes, instead of consumer needs.
javascript:getinput=prompt("what is your name);alert("hello "+getinput)
This is as simple as any programming language gets these days, and you can type this into the address bar of any web browser and get instant results. It is the first step towards learning to program, using javascript. It really couldn't be any simpler. Something this simple illustrates how easy it is to get started.
Ok, so you will eventually need a server. Well, there are servers built in to many operating systems these days, including windows, mac osx, and linux. It's either install python or install a web server, and in some cases a web server is already installed. Even XP comes with IIS, all you have to click a check-box in the Programs and Options to get it installed, and then you have C:\inetpub where you can write all the javascript you like, with ease, with notepad or whatever you like. There are also plenty of free online hosting options, and there are free online javascript editors/hosting to make it even easier to get started and share your code. jsbin.com and jsfiddle.net come to mind. No python to install, compile.
Javascript is a natural choice for the beginner, not because of it's syntax, or it's features, but because people already know web browsers. They don't know python or why they'd even want to know it. They want to make websites. They don't want to make desktop applications, or console applications. This is the flaw in thinking that they should be using something like Python, beginners don't know why they'd want to code in something named after a snake. But, they've heard of javascript and it is widespread around the internet, and well documented. Every language has quirks, and that is a non-issue in terms of why people shouldn't use javascript. Also, Javascript's dynamic typing and lack of boilerplate make the bar to entry very much lower than most other languages, and for a beginner this is a huge win.
All the python fanboys here are totally missing the point. The post is about getting kids to learn programming. Most kids these days will have their first exposure to computers in a web browser. Not a command line, not a text editor, not a compiler or an IDE. A web browser. There is no better choice for instant gratification for someone interested in learning to program. A child learning to program can write any kind of simple program and be able to send a url to their mom, dad, grandma, best friends, facebook, etc.. they don't have to compile anything or then.zip the.exe because emailing it to mom, dad, grandma, etc, and expecting them to unzip and run their little program is just too much to ask. Python does little towards instant gratification, and keeping them interested in learning more. JavaScript is a better choice, it is as ubiquitous as any language, well documented around the net, and it runs in the most used environment by over 2 billion people on a daily basis. If I were a kid these days JavaScript would be the best language to start with. If wanting to go further there are plenty of back-end platforms that also run JavaScript. They can even write iPhone apps with it.
It's all fine unless you come across a metal shaving or a tiny screw that lodges itself in there due to the magnetic force, and shorts out your connector anyway. I can't count the number of times the magnetic connector on my macbook has attracted just such a piece of metal and caused problems. the magnetic connector is not perfect, in fact i'd be more happy with a traditional connector & being more aware of how/where the cord is placed.
Mozilla lost the plot a while ago. If not for firebug (i'm a developer), there would be no reason at all that I'd use it except to test my sites to see what their newest version breaks. They are spending too much effort supporting things like coffeescript which already has a dubious reputation, and other "features", and not focusing on fixing the bloated memory issues it's had for years, or fixing their SVG implementation or any of the more important problems. Releasing this often isn't going to help fix those problems either. Mozilla, give me a new version when you have a browser that isn't fundamentally broken in so many ways.
I use firefox 3, 3.x, and 4 on both macs and pcs, along with most other browsers including chrome and IE on a daily basis to test websites. chrome gets up to about 80MB max, IE comes in at around 100MB or so, and FF (any version) typically climbs up to 1.5GB to 2GB, and slows the machine to a crawl until I restart FF. this is not normal behavior for any type of software. the browsers are all running the same website in a similar number of tabs, and I have to restart FF several TIMES A DAY, not weeks as some people suggest. all things being equal, FF has a SERIOUS problem with RAM usage, and I applaud the devs for finally listening to the many, many complaints about this.
Me too, but computing resources tend to find their way to me. I have 4 external screens hooked up to my laptop at work, and at home I have a monster PC workstation with 8 22" screens arranged in a 4x2 matrix. Nothing beats web developing on 8 screens, except maybe 10 screens.
Having to switch windows often while developing, creates 'friction', and slows down development time. Hardware is so cheap, it's ridiculous to be developing on a single screen unless your dev environment is so sparse that all you have is a text window and a command line to run the program. Web development often requires testing on many browsers, in different VMs, and lots of tools that get used very often in the course of developing. Having instant access to the most used windows will save you time and stress. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
yet another programmer that doesn't understand the difference between DOM and JavaScript. you can run javascript outside of a web browser using many different engines, and guess what? the incompatabilities are a non-issue, because there is no DOM implementation to work around.
Programmers who arent that familiar with javascript often blame javascript for being such a pain to work with, when it really is differing DOM implementations that are causing their frustration.
NO KEYBOARD, NO PURCHASE. it is simple as that for many people, including myself, and i am looking for an android phone to replace a long line of winmo phones with keyboards that i've owned.
there is no substitute for a real keyboard. i am not going to use a device that blocks half of the screen real estate with an OSK. it is like paying for a device with half the screen size. . it just won't fly with the tasks i use the device for.
I just got a 10 Watt RGB LED from ebay (from hong kong) in the mail, cost me $17. It provides 300 Lumens and is seriously intensely bright. Was easy to hook up with a few simple voltage regulators on a 12V supply. Multiply x 3 and you have 900 lumens for under $50. Just needs some cooling and PWM and there you go.
Jobs was only trying to change the subject here. The subject was open vs. non-open platform. Jobs quickly turned the conversation to "Android is very fragmented", which does not speak about the topic of open vs. closed. It really shows how scared he is of Android, because he can't talk his way out of the fact that the iPhone is one of the most heavily restricted software/hardware platforms in the world. The conversation isn't really about 'fragmented vs. integrated' - users don't care, but they do care when they can't run software they want to run, and that is where Jobs is trying to change the subject.
You poor sap. This is not Apple doing the right thing. This is Apple trying (poorly) to avoid a class action suit. Apple's code to calculate signal bars was defective by design to make the phone show more bars than it actually should, which pleases the user when all the not-iPhones show 1 or 2 bars, the iPhone is showing 4 or 5 bars, regardless of the actual signal. This is about competition and user satisfaction, and Apple has been purposely lying to users to make them think their phone works better than the competition. You might accept it as a 'mistake' but it reeks of underhanded business decision. If you think I am full of shit, which you may, consider how many companies employ similar techniques in any industry as often as they can get away with. I've been asked to do similar things in practically every company i've worked for, and I am sure others have similar stories.
The 'mistake' they are talking about is actually a disingenuous way to make the phone's antenna performance seem better to the user than it actually is. Apple is scrambling for any plausible 'fix' to satiate people so they don't get a class action lawsuit thrown at them. This 'fix' isn't really a fix at all. They are removing code that was designed to be misleading to the user to show more bars than the phone should be showing, in order to make it appear to the user that they are fixing something that was broken. I doubt this was ever a mistake as they claim, and more likely just another example of how low Apple will go to make you think your magical iPhone has better reception than phones that don't have this 'mistake' in their software.
How many of the iPad owners researched the device before they bought it? Do you think that they all went over the specs and decided they had a purpose for the device that another device could not fill? I think the vast majority of these purchases were done out of fandboyism, and a desire to be 'cool', rather than the device fitting a specific need for anyone. The reality distortion field is quite good at being able to cancel out buyer's remorse.
This is why the web industry is starting to wake up to 'Front-end engineer' as a job title. The days of 'web developer' are coming to an end and specialization is starting to take hold in the minds of the people designing websites more complex than craigslist. The idea that a 'Web Developer' should know all of the back-end technologies as well as being highly skilled at HTML/Javascript/CSS is coming to an end. There are now many jobs for 'Front-End Engineer' positions paying 100K+, because people have finally recognized the complexity of building front-end code to work across 5 different browsers and many revisions of those 5 browsers, on multiple operating systems. The back-end is typically much more predictable as the hardware and software platforms can be chosen well in advance, and that never really changes during development. And with the Flash wars going on between Apple and Adobe, HTML/Javascript/CSS is becoming even more important.
Too many cooks in the web2.0 kitchen.
I agree it is a lame feature. it only frustrates me when i want to go immediately to maps or images, but i have to wait for that stupid f$@#*ing fade-in.
I'm a web developer, and I ABSOLUTELY HATE the way so many interfaces in the world these days hide information by default, like microsoft hiding their menus until you press the ALT key.. whoever thought that up should have their computing privleges revoked. Important menus should never be hidden by default. Google could have faded those menu elements in from a lighter text color instead of hiding them completely - that way they would not distract from whatever they want users to focus on, but they also wouldn't be hidden from people who just want to get to maps or images or any of the other tools in their menu.
Google! Just stop! Please stop messing with your search page. We don't want or need your fade-in effects of the menu, we just want the menu. We don't want background images or anything fancy. Just leave it alone!
Slashdot Mirror
You mean ECMA 3.1, not Actionscript. Actionscript is a brand name that Adobe slapped on javascript and called it their own. I code ECMA 3.1 with .NET all the time. It's pretty awesome.
"your aged parents" aren't in any way representative of the majority of apple users who absolutely despise that godawful one button mouse. It wouldn't be so bad if apple left that design decision back in the 1980's, but they keep making these mice wih one button (or with a single button you can't even see) due to Jobs' anemic design aesthetic. Jobs has always been about 'form over function' and this is one example where he chose to make something less functional in order to satisfy his eyes, instead of consumer needs.
javascript:getinput=prompt("what is your name);alert("hello "+getinput) This is as simple as any programming language gets these days, and you can type this into the address bar of any web browser and get instant results. It is the first step towards learning to program, using javascript. It really couldn't be any simpler. Something this simple illustrates how easy it is to get started. Ok, so you will eventually need a server. Well, there are servers built in to many operating systems these days, including windows, mac osx, and linux. It's either install python or install a web server, and in some cases a web server is already installed. Even XP comes with IIS, all you have to click a check-box in the Programs and Options to get it installed, and then you have C:\inetpub where you can write all the javascript you like, with ease, with notepad or whatever you like. There are also plenty of free online hosting options, and there are free online javascript editors/hosting to make it even easier to get started and share your code. jsbin.com and jsfiddle.net come to mind. No python to install, compile. Javascript is a natural choice for the beginner, not because of it's syntax, or it's features, but because people already know web browsers. They don't know python or why they'd even want to know it. They want to make websites. They don't want to make desktop applications, or console applications. This is the flaw in thinking that they should be using something like Python, beginners don't know why they'd want to code in something named after a snake. But, they've heard of javascript and it is widespread around the internet, and well documented. Every language has quirks, and that is a non-issue in terms of why people shouldn't use javascript. Also, Javascript's dynamic typing and lack of boilerplate make the bar to entry very much lower than most other languages, and for a beginner this is a huge win.
All the python fanboys here are totally missing the point. The post is about getting kids to learn programming. Most kids these days will have their first exposure to computers in a web browser. Not a command line, not a text editor, not a compiler or an IDE. A web browser. There is no better choice for instant gratification for someone interested in learning to program. A child learning to program can write any kind of simple program and be able to send a url to their mom, dad, grandma, best friends, facebook, etc.. they don't have to compile anything or then .zip the .exe because emailing it to mom, dad, grandma, etc, and expecting them to unzip and run their little program is just too much to ask. Python does little towards instant gratification, and keeping them interested in learning more. JavaScript is a better choice, it is as ubiquitous as any language, well documented around the net, and it runs in the most used environment by over 2 billion people on a daily basis. If I were a kid these days JavaScript would be the best language to start with. If wanting to go further there are plenty of back-end platforms that also run JavaScript. They can even write iPhone apps with it.
It's all fine unless you come across a metal shaving or a tiny screw that lodges itself in there due to the magnetic force, and shorts out your connector anyway. I can't count the number of times the magnetic connector on my macbook has attracted just such a piece of metal and caused problems. the magnetic connector is not perfect, in fact i'd be more happy with a traditional connector & being more aware of how/where the cord is placed.
Mozilla lost the plot a while ago. If not for firebug (i'm a developer), there would be no reason at all that I'd use it except to test my sites to see what their newest version breaks. They are spending too much effort supporting things like coffeescript which already has a dubious reputation, and other "features", and not focusing on fixing the bloated memory issues it's had for years, or fixing their SVG implementation or any of the more important problems. Releasing this often isn't going to help fix those problems either. Mozilla, give me a new version when you have a browser that isn't fundamentally broken in so many ways.
I use firefox 3, 3.x, and 4 on both macs and pcs, along with most other browsers including chrome and IE on a daily basis to test websites. chrome gets up to about 80MB max, IE comes in at around 100MB or so, and FF (any version) typically climbs up to 1.5GB to 2GB, and slows the machine to a crawl until I restart FF. this is not normal behavior for any type of software. the browsers are all running the same website in a similar number of tabs, and I have to restart FF several TIMES A DAY, not weeks as some people suggest. all things being equal, FF has a SERIOUS problem with RAM usage, and I applaud the devs for finally listening to the many, many complaints about this.
is that you HIBOU? fucking troll.
I'd still rather have 8 screens with a virtual desktop than 1 screen with a virtual desktop.
Me too, but computing resources tend to find their way to me. I have 4 external screens hooked up to my laptop at work, and at home I have a monster PC workstation with 8 22" screens arranged in a 4x2 matrix. Nothing beats web developing on 8 screens, except maybe 10 screens. Having to switch windows often while developing, creates 'friction', and slows down development time. Hardware is so cheap, it's ridiculous to be developing on a single screen unless your dev environment is so sparse that all you have is a text window and a command line to run the program. Web development often requires testing on many browsers, in different VMs, and lots of tools that get used very often in the course of developing. Having instant access to the most used windows will save you time and stress. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
yet another programmer that doesn't understand the difference between DOM and JavaScript. you can run javascript outside of a web browser using many different engines, and guess what? the incompatabilities are a non-issue, because there is no DOM implementation to work around. Programmers who arent that familiar with javascript often blame javascript for being such a pain to work with, when it really is differing DOM implementations that are causing their frustration.
Then add coffeescript on top and your Rube Goldberg machine is complete.
you are an idiot and a troll.
NO KEYBOARD, NO PURCHASE. it is simple as that for many people, including myself, and i am looking for an android phone to replace a long line of winmo phones with keyboards that i've owned. there is no substitute for a real keyboard. i am not going to use a device that blocks half of the screen real estate with an OSK. it is like paying for a device with half the screen size. . it just won't fly with the tasks i use the device for.
I just got a 10 Watt RGB LED from ebay (from hong kong) in the mail, cost me $17. It provides 300 Lumens and is seriously intensely bright. Was easy to hook up with a few simple voltage regulators on a 12V supply. Multiply x 3 and you have 900 lumens for under $50. Just needs some cooling and PWM and there you go.
Jobs was only trying to change the subject here. The subject was open vs. non-open platform. Jobs quickly turned the conversation to "Android is very fragmented", which does not speak about the topic of open vs. closed. It really shows how scared he is of Android, because he can't talk his way out of the fact that the iPhone is one of the most heavily restricted software/hardware platforms in the world. The conversation isn't really about 'fragmented vs. integrated' - users don't care, but they do care when they can't run software they want to run, and that is where Jobs is trying to change the subject.
Hawking is full of shit, always has been. Time will wipe away all he has said, and replace it with actual science.
In my experience, it isn't the developers who are lazy, it is management who won't allocate resources.
you are an idiot
You poor sap. This is not Apple doing the right thing. This is Apple trying (poorly) to avoid a class action suit. Apple's code to calculate signal bars was defective by design to make the phone show more bars than it actually should, which pleases the user when all the not-iPhones show 1 or 2 bars, the iPhone is showing 4 or 5 bars, regardless of the actual signal. This is about competition and user satisfaction, and Apple has been purposely lying to users to make them think their phone works better than the competition. You might accept it as a 'mistake' but it reeks of underhanded business decision. If you think I am full of shit, which you may, consider how many companies employ similar techniques in any industry as often as they can get away with. I've been asked to do similar things in practically every company i've worked for, and I am sure others have similar stories.
The 'mistake' they are talking about is actually a disingenuous way to make the phone's antenna performance seem better to the user than it actually is. Apple is scrambling for any plausible 'fix' to satiate people so they don't get a class action lawsuit thrown at them. This 'fix' isn't really a fix at all. They are removing code that was designed to be misleading to the user to show more bars than the phone should be showing, in order to make it appear to the user that they are fixing something that was broken. I doubt this was ever a mistake as they claim, and more likely just another example of how low Apple will go to make you think your magical iPhone has better reception than phones that don't have this 'mistake' in their software.
How many of the iPad owners researched the device before they bought it? Do you think that they all went over the specs and decided they had a purpose for the device that another device could not fill? I think the vast majority of these purchases were done out of fandboyism, and a desire to be 'cool', rather than the device fitting a specific need for anyone. The reality distortion field is quite good at being able to cancel out buyer's remorse.
This is why the web industry is starting to wake up to 'Front-end engineer' as a job title. The days of 'web developer' are coming to an end and specialization is starting to take hold in the minds of the people designing websites more complex than craigslist. The idea that a 'Web Developer' should know all of the back-end technologies as well as being highly skilled at HTML/Javascript/CSS is coming to an end. There are now many jobs for 'Front-End Engineer' positions paying 100K+, because people have finally recognized the complexity of building front-end code to work across 5 different browsers and many revisions of those 5 browsers, on multiple operating systems. The back-end is typically much more predictable as the hardware and software platforms can be chosen well in advance, and that never really changes during development. And with the Flash wars going on between Apple and Adobe, HTML/Javascript/CSS is becoming even more important.
Too many cooks in the web2.0 kitchen. I agree it is a lame feature. it only frustrates me when i want to go immediately to maps or images, but i have to wait for that stupid f$@#*ing fade-in. I'm a web developer, and I ABSOLUTELY HATE the way so many interfaces in the world these days hide information by default, like microsoft hiding their menus until you press the ALT key.. whoever thought that up should have their computing privleges revoked. Important menus should never be hidden by default. Google could have faded those menu elements in from a lighter text color instead of hiding them completely - that way they would not distract from whatever they want users to focus on, but they also wouldn't be hidden from people who just want to get to maps or images or any of the other tools in their menu.
Google! Just stop! Please stop messing with your search page. We don't want or need your fade-in effects of the menu, we just want the menu. We don't want background images or anything fancy. Just leave it alone!