plugnburn

What countries are supported to send SMS to?

Wow. Facebook had managed to fail on a thing absent in much less popular sites since the day one.

A CDN absolutely mustn't allow a user to browse to a file with a different extension than it was uploaded with. It must return 404 in this case. II think the flaw is much more severe than has been discovered.

Commandline only. Especially if you define some bash macros.

If you don't know git command, you don't know Git at all.

Cool! Microlibraries FTW, and I see requestAnimationFrame is used, so it must be more performant than most other similar libs. Definitely will try it out. Kudos!

> But even still, if you were familiar with the plugin and it would take you 5 minutes to do it that way, why not?

Because I believe these kind of things must be solved with no JS at all, let alone a bloatware lib.

> If page size or load times are excessive at some point, trim the fat then.

jQuery is THE fat.

> So many things already require jQuery

... that I try to avoid them as virus spreaders.

> a form wizard plugin

Wut?

> a calendar picker

<input type=date>

> AJAX form posting with backward compatibility

XMLHttpRequest (probably with some wrapper functions).

> and can't use FormData because you have to support those older browsers

If a thing happens we must enable front-side file uploads for unterbrowsers without FormData, then we use our custom iframe-based solution and charge the customer additionally. Unterbrowser users must suffer, as well as those who want to support them.

> because I doubt rolling your own calendar picker is the goal of the project.

All the things we need were already rolled long before the project start.

> Again, why would you build your own grid and responsive layout/break points when you can just pull in Bootstrap?

Because my grid weighs 999 bytes. How many kilos does Bootstrap weigh?

> the you're wasting your client's time and your employer's money.

Nope, because the grid is already built.

> If you're picking Bootstrap or jQuery you're not trying to enhance them. Your using them to jumpstart your project to build the parts that you need to build.

Since they don't meet my needs 100% of the time, I would end up with some modules that do the same as the ones written from scratch, but slower and with buggy underlying code. Why would anyone prefer that?

> making an AJAX request required 20 lines of code and a bunch of cascading if/else blocks to make sure which request object you were going to get

How hard is it write it once, the way YOU see fit, and then use it all your projects? Or you believe only jQuery authors are allowed to do that?

> It's a bit narcissistic to think you will always be better than what a team of people has been working on for years, but it doesn't mean you're not wrong either.

I'm not trying to be better than them. But yes, I'm trying to do _things I need_ better than they can offer.

> At the end, you bring in the overhead of code maintained by somebody else because you think it will let you finish faster, higher quality, or with features you otherwise wouldn't be able to build.

In the real world though, "finish faster" and "higher quality" are almost always mutually exclusive.

All JavaScript libraries (!) should be authored in JavaScript.

All complex code that uses them should be authored in CoffeeScript.

Nothing more is needed.

P.S. TypeScript is M$ invention -> must burn in hell.

You cannot enhance Bootstrap itself easily. Moreover, you cannot rewrite any core functionality clearly done wrong. I don't need a widespread virus called jQuery, I want to write pure JS, and I definitely have no need in that virus to make my website truly responsive. Why use a plugin to make a hamburger menu when you can do it using pure CSS3 and a hidden checkbox? Why all that overhead?

http://codeofrob.com/entries/you-have-ruined-javascript.html

Systems for processing highly classified governmental/military confidential information often are required (depending on the country laws) to provide formal proof of their entire work. Other than that (and because it is too expensive to run such an analysis) people just need to look at the code to check whether it's doing what it's supposed to do.

Ok, bootstrap (as well as jquery) has become a sign of lazy AND inefficient developer.

I don't usually use in-terminal tiling managers, but when I do, I use dvtm.

ROFL but true.

Bootstrap has become a sign of a lazy developer.

Understood everything about it, except this:

Could you please calculate what does it weigh minified in ready-to use ES5 state? I'd like to compare it to some other ready libraries and my own solution.

Funny page.

P.S. Hello from invaded Ukraine.

Did you even open it in Firefox? Because this is what I see in FF 45: http://i.imgur.com/S9A3CbG.png

Definitely not relaxing...

Some questions:

- Why ES6/ES2015?

- What are the advantages over Knockout?

- Why does it weigh so much if its only ability is two-way data binding?

And probably the most interesting question:

- Why the heck do I need to use Browserify for something that will NEVER EVER run on a server side?!

P.S. Nice monologue though. :)

Well, because Chrome isn't so ES6-compatible as Firefox yet.

Of course. It's a demo for Samples.js, which is opensource.

Finally.

I would love to check it out, if only your page didn't hang my Firefox. It's really impossible to scroll. Lags are ~10-15s. Hardly even closed the tab. What's going on there? Was it really written with performance in mind? :)

I started with C (and got pretty good at writing some cryptography in it), then studied Perl (a bit), then Python (2.6 to 2.7), then PHP (5.4 to 5.6) and now I'm totally into JavaScript and CoffeeScript.

Am I a n00b?

Just don't pay any attention to some pseudo-elitist old farts that try to tell you what's Ъ (true) and what's !Ъ (false). Do the things you, not others, consider awesome in the first place. Don't catch along with the progress, move the progress yourself.

And you'll just watch and laugh how others will try to build an app in 2 months in "manly" C that you can build in a week in "unmanly" Python or CoffeeScript.

Not everyone must target microcontrollers, cryptography or system kernels these days. In other fields, C appears as a pretty inefficient approach. Even console, let alone GUI, text editors are built in Node.js now - see Slap and Atom for an example. Are Slap or Atom developers n00bs? I don't think so.

Care to explain why this was downvoted?

I honestly don't understand how did the authors manage to make a skeleton (!) page not passing validation. Even <title> is empty when it must not be so.

Is it because of Angular? Well, if a framework forces you to write invalid HTML (tags, attributes, whatever), it sucks, no matter what.

Never heard of Livefyre (so can't say anything of it) and never had any problems with Disqus. And what I know for sure is that Disqus is definitely better than Cackle and other similar systems that _require_ you to have a social or google account.

What's wrong with ya people? Since when isn't plain login/password pair enough? I don't want to get involved into online slavery sect with those "social" popular apps.

Thankfully, Disqus still allows to do things right, so I see no reason to bash it now.

And yes:

> Because the “customer is always right”

This very approach is the one that prevents IT from really rapid progress.

Nice one, although KISS Launcher is still more usable for me.

Since obsolete unterbrowser users must suffer, rem FTW.

What's REALLY missing in modern CSS3 standard is the ability to reassign CSS root to any other element than <html>, according to font properties of which all nested rems would be calculated. So, for now, we have to stick to assigning base font sizes to <html>, not even to <body>.

My microframework (999.css - http://999.surge.sh) uses pixels to assign base font size to <html>, rem for <body>, ems for headings and rems for all other nested typography.

I thought yet another JS/CSS asset manager for Node.js already existed, and it was called Grunt. Then Gulp. Then Brunch. And still not enough...

Just kidding, nice small project. I'll stick to Grunt though.

And since the latest commit was on 22 Dec 2014, the project seems to be frozen. Sad but true.

It's related to the intentions this guy had in his head. If someone would find this vulnerability in Updrop after plenty of files were uploaded and the service became popular, compromising the security with any evil intention would bring a disaster. Now that PHP file uploading is already closed both at the client and server sides, it became relatively safe to operate.

Although, until filename(1), (2) etc issue is fixed, this service isn't worth any serious consideration anyway. Too many newbie mistakes here.

Update: this seems to be fixed too for now (not a perfect variant, as the original name is lost forever, but a plausible solution that's much better than it was). Nice!

Then you should definitely give a try to Meteor framework (https://www.meteor.com/). Using it, we have built and run a production-ready service + Android app for a local flower shop delivery-messengers in about 5 days.

What's the real issue is:

<navbar></navbar>

Do you even know that this is invalid and the proper tag is called just <nav>? Do you know that <title> must not be empty in the initial page? Do you know that custom attributes must start with data- (not ng- or ui-)?

Did you even check your page with http://validator.w3.org?

Was. 15 years ago.