A large, bloated JS framework with an unintuitive syntax and very few features
github.com
github.com
"Because Javelin's design focuses heavily on solving scalability challenges, it isn't appropriate for everyone. The design implies tradeoffs, and the cost of some of these tradeoffs is increased complexity, reduced ease of development, or less flexibility"
This is really refreshingly honest, especially compared to some of the newer nosql sites we've seen lately.
Edit:
- "We designed for x, y & z to fulfill these requirements: .."
- "These are tradeoffs though, so if your needs a different,
this may not be the best approach"But otherwise looks like a good effort.
The tests link doesn't work either so I thought it was somehow related.
>A large, bloated JS framework with an unintuitive syntax and very few features
didn't your browser display?
It's mostly designed for performance anyway.
Still, I am not the targeted audience for their framework. I do not like their syntax.
These self called geeks and gurus are best avoided in projects. I guess the hacked by China joke is like a filter.
Real programmers do it for fun. And they not only do it in few words, they also do it with 'finger'.
I guess, they are just doing a cultural handshake they try to filter out the morons by sending irrelevant information on one hand (the official website), and another one on the other hand (the doc is concise and clear).
For me it is a new divide in programming community: the infatuated hipsters self called geeks vs the mocking nerds.
For me it is the sense of the zed shaw's rant on rails, and of the readme and sites of javelin.
PS : I belong to the mocking nerds.
There are more dimensions here than just two. The two groups you've described co-exist with many other kinds of programmers. For example, Linus Torvalds is not a mocking nerd or a hipster. I would imagine that many programmers do not identify with the two groups you've described. There are groups of 'serious' and talented programmers, lulzy talented programmers, lulzy hipster programmers, and every combination in between. Shades of gray, as they say.
Some have it, some don't.
Some see shades of gray, some sees a rainbow of colours and even the ones that are not in the visible spectrum, I'd say.
If a software has been done, buy it! It will be almost always less expensive than building it. If it has not been done yet, no book or knowledge can tell you how to do it.
And if an idea you can code is new, you'll hardly have the word for it. It is easier to brag about «well (re)known ideas» than doing new stuff.
Colours you can't see are ideas we have not yet the word to describe them to those who can't see them.
Really? I thought he notorious for abrasive replies telling people they're idiots for using C++, etc.
Choose your mockin nerd.
You can rephrase most of these sometimes 20 years old+ quotes for each technical news we have seen recently.
A lulz is just another caricature of a nerd. Mimicking a trait like a monkey is not capturing the essence of the thing.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the expert -- Feynman
Hipsters? Nerds? Geeks? These pointless monikers don't say anything about someone's true programming aptitude. You're doing yourself and everyone else a disservice by acting like that these stereotypes exist.
That's also why it's a pretty jerk thing to call someone on the internet. Hipster-slingers: you have no frickin idea why people like the things they like. But try assuming it's because they actually like them. It makes the conversation a lot more fun.
I only visualize the people with their crappy and expensive earplugs and ipod telling how much they love music. And they seems to ignore how much their sound is distorded.
Hispters love the words and attitude and despise the knowledge. That's my definition.
I guess I just got confused as I would never use the term that way myself -- as you say, "you have no idea why people like the things they like".
As such, if I were to say "hipster", I'd be referring to the subculture - the skinny-jeans/chunky-glasses/retro-t-shirt/coffee-shop crowd. Being a trait I can actually consistently identify in a person, rather than a trait I can merely assert the presence of without evidence.
For some people expressing individuality is more important than "wanting someone to use their software".
? :)
Edit: Thanks for the link, that project looks awesome! I'm convinced already. Wonder if it was just the language that did the trick..
I am loving the humor.
Ironically, this counterintuitive, lets-make-fun-of-other-JS-frameworks-overhyping-themselvs approach has already seeded into my mind, "FB must have awesome JS, remember how they could get away with parodying other JS frameworks?"
If I move to the next image before the current one finishes loading, the next one will be replaced by the old one when it finishes loading. Really annoying, a very simple thing to fix, but I guess that FB engineers never view their sites on slow connections...
* pages frequently don't refresh correctly (content is missing)
* changes to your profile take hours to reflect or reflect inconsistently
* stale notifications persist despite reloading (CTRL+F5) a page
* notifications made within the space of 12 hours are listed as a combined notification
* image uploads fail with no way to recover (dialog just sits there) or often take me to an error page (with the album created)
* the timeline places items in weird locations with no way to fix it (changing the date doesn't work consistently)
* chat windows show inconsistent messages between two tabs on the same browser
That's just off the top of my head. Some of these seem to have been fixed, but I'm always running into new problems. (Note: I'm not suggesting it's easy building a site like Facebook.)
Comparing that to the variety of gadgets and clickables on Facebook's website, the complexity of other Webapps looks like a joke.
Most stuff you mention are issues you see in a lot of heavy-load AJAX-Apps.
"chat windows show inconsistent messages between two tabs on the same browser" That's XMPP, mate.
I don't really understand your point about complexity. It seems contradictory. You're saying other sites have most of these issues but you're also saying Facebook is much more complex without having much more issues. That doesn't make sense, especially since you're also saying you think these issues are common to what you say is a fragile technology stack under these loads (AJAX) and suggesting that it's okay to then add extra "gadgets and clickables" to an already fragile stack.
With respect to your claims about Gmail, my 2 year old Gmail account currently consumes 815MB of storage across ~6K emails. I use Google Docs regularly. I have never seen the issues I listed w.r.t. Facebook on Google services. GTalk works perfectly across multiple platforms simultaneously. I even find www.gmail.com (mobile & desktop) to work better and more reliably than Apple's Mail application on my iPhone. I have never failed to attach a file to a Gmail email; I've also never failed to upload an image to Docs. Facebook's application - mobile iOS, under Safari on iOS, and on Windows - is consistently buggy.
You seem pretty heavily invested in defending Facebook in such a way that you take my observations as personal attacks. Are you currently employed there or have you been employed there by any chance? Or are you a non-native English speaker?
When using Gmail at work often, I frequently failed to sent attachments or I had issues with the mail client to load. Others had the same issue. It's always a question how you use applications.
I can hardly think of any other well-known website that is more complex than Facebook. Every little screen space is used, you can click anywhere and it has hundreds of millions of users.
Compare the Facebook interface to the Google Interfaces and you know what I mean.
"GETTING STARTED
Eat a hearty breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!"
That's Javascript for you - you can't have both performant and nice code at the same time.
Eat a hearty breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!