Piss off. All this bullshit about people taking some personal attribute or behavior and insisting that it's a major part of their "identity" is nothing more than a defense mechanism for losers.
She did set it in motion. And she was clearly - in part - set in motion by others. But she has far more power than the person I was responding to is acknowledging. Tiger Woods has millions in the bank too, and he still had to self-flagellate when he wronged his wife. In summary: you are an idiot.
Hilarious that you run the same tactic of accusing me of being "sexist" to discredit me. Nor does your response address anything other than your own deranged imaginings. I didn't say something bad didn't happen to them. What I said was that the she is not powerless. You tried to cast her as powerless - you were quite clear on this, and you were wrong. And somehow in your deranged, imbecilic mind pointing that out that is "mischaracterizing" your point-of-view, whereas rabbiting on about things I never even said and accusing me of being a "sexist" is not. All I can say is: LOL
The nature of power is that the person who sets the ball rolling is the one in power. That's why a sculptor is the one with the power, not the chisel. The fact that there's some appearance of backlash doesn't alter that. And as to which chain of events, how could I be any clearer? The chain of events starting with her deciding to go public. The rest of your comment is just shallow moralizing that doesn't tell us anything about who has the power. I suppose you're the one to always side with the crying woman, because that's as deep as your understanding of power goes. It doesn't occur to you that tears themselves have power.
>It doesn't guarantee that we end up with the best designs, but such a process has benefits too, and since it's happening in the open, you could actually take part too (assuming you aren't already).
Unfortunately, what is needed is LESS people participating.
Well, I agree. And asm.js etc are better than what we had before, so some praise should be allocated to them. But it is not innovative or elegant; it's a hack that takes us back to the state of the JVM more than a decade ago, and we're going to be paying the cost for it for some time. Hell, they can't even get the simplest possible thing - the syntax of HTML - right. So it will always anger me when I see web types touting their "innovation" etc. They are good at one thing: marketing to stupids.
Javascript was the wrong design choice, and the asm.js people are very sensitive about this. Which is why they pretend it's "just Javascript". Nobody denies that it's backward compatible. But it is a new language, the rest is word games.
I didn't say the Javascript implementations weren't Javascript implementations. Further, you are incorrect. A subset of C cannot be C. Are you dumb? If I make an expression language is this C because C has a little expression language inside it? It is a subset - and also a SUBSET OF AN INFINITE SET OF OTHER LANGUAGES. Hopefully you can understand my anger that baboons are apparently allowed to implement programming languages. They got it wrong with Javascript and did a complete about-turn with emscripten etc in REACTION to competitors. I look forward to laughing at your continued attempts to hide this embarrassing little abortion.
What GALL you have to be so willfully dishonest. asm.js is statically typed and has only the most coincidental relationship to Javascript. Just as if I take pointers out of C it is no longer C. What's funny is that you are exhibiting EXACTLY the "nothing to see here" behavior I just described by invoking some completely nominal relationship between Javascript and asm.js. And it is exactly this "nothing to see here" behavior that emphasizes how deep down the web people know they are simply reacting to competitors to retain market share.
A decade-late attempt to catch up with the JVM. Notice how there's no design here? It's because the web people had no idea this would be necessary and it got bolted on as a reaction to competitors. That is to say, the innovation belongs to plugin vendors, not the web people.
The popularity of DirectX doesn't vindicate Windows either. So what's your point? It's shit but, eh, that's the way the world turned out? People have every right to be annoyed because the people who were entrusted with the concept of the web implemented it very badly. At least on Windows there's a serious effort to give me as much of the machine's power as possible. I had a better programming experience with Java applets more than a decade ago. It is a joke.
Clueless. Just clueless. None of these benefits are tied to the crap browser platform that's been foisted on us. The stewards of the browser did a terrible job of designing it, as proven by shoddy hacks like asm.js. Did you know that it took WebGL to get them to introduce typed arrays? They weren't smart enough to see the usefulness of this, they had to bumble into it. Same with async HTTP requests. So woopty-doo you've caught up to where the JVM was over a decade ago. Semantic HTML has been destroyed by this mindset also.
Of course they do! asm.js is a collection of everything in Javascript that optimizes on the current hardware. It's not the least bit dynamic, i.e. it is not Javascript.
Those are all hardware setups, whereas the browser is a very poorly designed portability layer (viewed in this way). It makes me physically angry how badly the browser vendors have dropped the ball here. It was obvious years ago that things were going this way, but instead of developing a proper application-development standard they just shoved everything into HTML. Every time I hear Mozilla talking about "innovation" I get upset because it is such a blatant lie. You have reinvented to past badly here. The best that can be said is you have been good at marketing the whole thing by constantly pretending that it's "just Javascript" etc, when the end result is completely static (i.e. not Javascript).
People have been parroting this nonsense for years. You have WebGL etc in the browser now. Web "pages" aren't pages anymore, and there is no way to enforce semantically meaningful markup. All that's been accomplished by fighting against the future is to ensure that all these low level services were implemented poorly. You can have all your high-level, common concepts but they need to be built onto a layered system. What we have now is a laughable mess, and it proves that the browser vendors have no idea what they're doing.
The man accusing me of "web creationism" jumps from "HTML etc suck and were poorly designed from the start" to "there's no explanation for their success". And in the same breath you engage in magical thinking regarding cause of the popularity of the web (indeed, I would bet you aren't capable of mentally separating "the web" from implementation details like HTML, CSS etc). Creationism was highly "successful" for the longest time too. Bravo on looking an absolute fool.
HTML etc get flack because they're badly designed. What do you want? Semantic markup, document layout or distributed programming? Sorry but the web people got _everything_ wrong. We don't have a platform that does any one thing well. The whole thing is a laughable dog's breakfast with no layering, no foundations or unity of design. The better course is evolution.. for Mozilla, who have been very good at maintaining their market position while endlessly bungling platform design.
World of Warcraft is not a "twitch" game. Ever multi-screened it? Why make all this stuff up? This may surprise you, but Flash games don't set the standard for quality network code.
It works just fine.. for non-realtime games (and has been widely used for such games since forever). I've done the tests - you cannot just "tweak" it, and even if you could you'd be relying on the networking stack to do something it's not intended to do.