DjDarkman

If Anonymous stands for free speech then, why do they engage against a church that has other views, this seems hypocritical to me.

But it maybe due to the fact that they don't really have an identity, hence one member may do something that others won't approve of, but this would turn out to be a chaotic mess.

Free speech is free speech even when it's stupid.

> Computers adore XML. It's nice and easy to parse, so structured and precise. Computers love that shit.

It's not the easy to parse, without interpreting complex schemas that are sometimes missing. It's not even easy to map, you have the attributes, the children and inner text, this makes it a pain to map to native objects.

There may be good tools for this, but I wouldn't call parsing it easy especially compared to other formats out there.

In my opinion, I found a framework(or so called un-framework) that gets ORM just right in PHP: http://flourishlib.com/

I too ended up using Smarty and doing the rest myself, but I feel that this particular framework has gone in the right direction.

The best thing about Flourish is that it doesn't pretend to be Java, it acknowledges PHP.

Bottom line: it made my code smaller and a lot readable. I highly recommend checking it out.

> The standard argument against offshore outsourcing goes like this: Offshore people don’t understand the work, or the culture, or don’t care about quality or just aren’t as good. They might be cheaper by the hour, but they’re more expensive in the long run.

> OK. That’s a hard one to disprove.

Actually it's quite easy to disprove, search for at least one counter example, and there you have it.

I find this article a disturbing to me as a European person who does outsourcing work. Are you sure non-US people are only capable for doing automated work?

Like I said, it doesn't magically make all nuances go away all by itself, it may make the programmer's job a lot easier but it does not directly impact user experience.

That's why it's not appropriate to compare browsers based on whether they implement this or not.

Last time I checked if I crashed one instance of Flash player in one tab, all instances crashed in all tabs.

Process isolation:

Run Chrome

Open a lot of tabs

Open one with a HTTP auth that brings up the native browser login dialog

Switch to another tab

Close the one with the dialog

Result: whole browser crashes.

Moral: process isolation does not mean better user experience.

Like I said a lot of times:

IE 6 is still officially supported

IE 9 is not available on XP

This is why Microsoft is still crippling the web.

Maybe it should be the other way around, maybe your homepage should be able to get "social" elements.

I simply use filters to keep only the necessary stuff in my Inbox.

Social games have nothing to do with social, if you want social, go for World of Warcraft or any other MMO, that has no Facebook integration, still they got millions of subscribers. And you can actually enjoy real game play with other people, not just clicking on static images and spamming your facebook-friends. In this case saying that Acti-Blizzard doesn't understand social is ridiculous.

Facebook may have zillions of users but that does not mean that it's exactly that great of an opportunity is. A country having huge population alone does not mean that it's a viable place to do business.

Mobile is still immature, iOS is a daunting place, you need to either give up 30% of your profit or charge 50% more for your game, Android is ... well fragmented. The PC market is the best there is for games.

If you buy Star Craft 2 today, you don't even need the DVD to install the game, you can always download a digital copy, again this reinforces my claim that Acti-Bliz understands the 21th century, it's not perfect, but calling them clueless is ridiculous.

I find it hard to believe if the author does not back it up with a lot of research and statistics. If the author would have just said 'it has great documentation' I would have said nothing about it, but when the compares it with others, he should have something to back it up.

I feel that the author just didn't try any other technologies.

> I found ASP.NET to be unmatched in terms of documentation

I find this hard to believe. Again I think the author knows his way around Microsoft products, and is biased towards it.

> Hiring quality coders on a bootstrapper’s budget is easier for ASP.NET than it is for anything open source. It just is.

I find this statement self-justifying and false. If a product is more scarce than others than it will probably be more expensive, in other words: if there is bigger competition there are lower prices.

The premise is true, no one cares about the server side technology expect maybe programmers who will have to build on that... wait what?

Just like hearing the story of World War [1-2] from different sides.

I see this as the last nail in Nokia's coffin. Android has a lot of momentum, Windows Phone 7 is "barely" out. Again Nokia plunges into uncertainty instead of competing with other manufacturers on the hardware front.

> You might need to enlighten yourself on exactly which browser first brought us ajax.

AJAX is older than XMLHTTP Request, virtually you can do AJAX with [i]frames, and this method is not even obsolete, because to my knowledge, that is the only way you could do a file upload(that works even in ancient browsers).

> IE was brilliant when it came out.

That still makes it a curse today.

> furthermore, isn't blaming IE close to blaming the customer?

Not even near. I'm blaming Microsoft for this one.

> The customer has chosen (even if the decision was made for them)

This is self contradictory.

> and that is something that we as developers have to live with

Sorry, but I believe in innovation.

I think it's popular because it's: simple, small, efficient and documented.

For hugely complex web applications you would probably desire more, but the fact of the matter is that the browser world is not ready for huge stuff, we still have IE, we recently got iOS, Android and many others. Progressive enhancement doesn't really allow you do those complex client side apps.

That problem could occur in other scenarios, and not particularly tied to web development.

> HN wouldn't accept a comment listing all the successful JS frameworks that use class based inheritance because it would be too long.

That certainly doesn't mean that class-based ones are the most successful.

> Your understanding of web development may be amiss, how the tables have turned! Web apps are around because of the delivery mechanism: the web. Not because they offer astounding experiences compared to a hypothetical desktop counterpart, but because cloud storage and scaling, always on availability, and browser ubiquity can be leveraged by users for great gains. Web application developers constantly struggle to provide the "native" experience while leveraging all the benefits of the web, but its hard, hence the post.

The browser would be long dead if it wasn't for JavaScript.

> an extraordinary tool

Agreed.

> you and I both use religiously

There is no religion on my part, it simply gets the job done, and allows me to focus on architecting my application instead of DOM bugs.

> However, I have found that its hard to scale up a large complex client side app using only jQuery, and I and seemingly many other feel the need for more structured frameworks to leverage in that domain. Do you disagree?

This is not a yes or no question, it depends on what's the problem, as I said in another comment, it's really easy to fix your dual validation problem, by writing a small micro framework, if there isn't one out there yet. It has become really easy to bridge the server and the client. You could abstract away any problem, but you shouldn't get too carried away with hierarchies, JavaScript is a semi-interpreted language and as I said, it's more function and prototypical than object(class) oriented .I agree that web development is hard, but as I said earlier, it's hard because of archaic browsers.

I'm sorry to hear that, in most places it's just one line. Let's hope the Hibernate people fix this.

If you have a huge dataset with complex validation rules, implement a server side validation engine, and do the same in client side and expose the rules to both parties, it's not hard at all.

jQuery is not only about the DOM, it's a tool, it doesn't force you to write code like this:

$('#foo').hide();$("#foo").css('color':'white');

You can write very clean structured code in JavaScript using jQuery.

This whole article complains about something simple. Web development sucks, but not because of form validations, it sucks because of IE. But that's another story.

> Services must be adapted to spit out JSON data for interpretation and rendering client side, or have their view code refactored to be accesible by fragment for use in AJAX calls.

It must be real hard to call your JSON encode function on your data set, that would make it 1 line longer. :)

> A radical departure from the jQuery mindset of DOM querying and manipulation, and use a UI kit instead. We aren’t in Kansas any more folks, its time to go where every other platform has gone and use the language to its fullest.

People wouldn't query the DOM if that wasn't the most effective way of getting stuff done. jQuery has a UI kit, it's called jQuery UI. And how is using jQuery equals to not using JavaScript to the fullest?

> The DOM should become an implementation detail which is touched as little as possible, and developers should work with virtual, extendable view classes as they do in Cocoa,QtGui, or Swing.

The author said "using JavaScript to the fullest" and now the author tells us to create "extendable view classes" in JavaScript. JavaScript is a prototypical language, you can't use it to the "fullest" if you force OOP on it.

> If we want to build desktop class applications we need to adopt the similar and proven paradigms from the desktop world. Sproutcore, Cappucino, Uki, and Qooxdoo have realized this and applied these successfully.

"proven paradigms" is a ridiculous term by itself in software development, putting it in web development context just makes it dumber. If desktop apps are so good, then how come web apps are still around? There is a reason why people still prefer jQuery over many of those.

Overall I feel this article is highly biased and the author doesn't really understand web development. The author's complaint's are invalid because the stuff that he is missing are already around.

Where can I find the requirements and the apply form/page/address?

> You modify the new and update method adding the line: > @recipe.date = Time.now > The equivalent in OX is adding the @DefaultValueCalculator annotation in model: > @DefaultValueCalculator(CurrentDateCalculator.class) > private Date date; > You obtain the same effect in a more declarative way.

That is more like a more verbose way. I am not a Ruby guy, but I would prefer the first syntax.

The global scope thing is not entierly true, you can use closures to minimize the global scope usage.

The problem is not that bad: - on the server side, always sanitize user input - only put script tags from places you trust

I don't disagree with the overall message of the article, but those points don't sound like reasons to me, more like methods for achieving better UX.

The problem is that particular w3schools page does not indicate that, they simply state that they are the same, without even slightly mentioning that it's because they are not in a function. My article shows off this difference. In short the page is misleading, because it doesn't state that the two are only interchangeable in those two examples, but not in in every situation.

We have to stop the evil enemy from posting false information to wikipedia and evil comments to your blog. :D

FACT.

There is a screenshot in the post, on your link it may be right, but on the link referenced in the post, it's wrong.

You shouldn't compare the OS-es that way, otherwise Mac OS X is a clear loser, because it only supports Apple hardware.

If we are comparing the two OS-es the only fair comparison we can make is the peripherals, where again, I doubt that OS X would win, sure it has great support from a lot of descent vendors, but again Linux support is huge, not because of the companies interest but because the developer community does a great job in writing drivers at an insane pace, heck they even managed to make broadcom cards work using binary blobs created originally for windows.

I didn't imply they are not making money, I didn't even touch the financial side of this, I just said that the lack of "proper" game controllers is a limiting factor, which should be addressed.

> Given the rate smartphone sales and smartphone app sales grow, I don't think it will take a long time until mobile game sales with overtake console game sales.

I don't think we will see that anytime soon, you won't get big screen experience from mobile phones that you can get from playing on your favorite console on a Full HD screen.